I’m Ben Stein – many of you know me from the classic film, “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” or from my Comedy Central show “Win Ben Stein’s Money”. Still others of you may know me as a speechwriter, for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. You may even have read my books, attended one of my lectures at The American University, Washington DC, or seen me on the talk shows.
I’m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.
America is not America without freedom. In every turning point in our history, freedom has been the key goal we are seeking: the Mayflower coming here, the Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, the Cold War. Tens of millions came here from foreign oppression and made a life here. Why? For freedom. Human beings are supposed to live in a state of freedom. Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.
A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.
Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.
Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.
Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.
They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened. EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often … and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.
Sincerely,
Ben Stein
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Actually, Einstein did not believe in a personal God and would abhor this sort of political strongarming of religion into the classroom. Take note:
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. [Albert Einstein, in a letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein]
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]
People like the opportunistic Ben Stein would do well as to understand the scientific method. Evolutionary biology has been under the microscope and studied rigorously for 130 years. ID, and its precursor creationism, has not even bothered to produce anything in terms of research.
Perhaps Mr. Stein would benefit to ask some serious questions of his ID proponents. Here are some suggestions:
1) Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?
2) What predictions does ID theory make?
3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?
4) What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?
5) What features of ID theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change?
6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
I highly doubt any of this will be addressed. This is going to be one of those fawning, self-congratulatory “documentaries.” by the right to reassure how great they are….
“Aren’t you smart! All those smarmy professors think they’re so great, but you figured it out and they’re wrong!”
“Christianity is under assault! Everyone is against you but you’re so strong for believing still! It must be so hard when you have hundreds of millions of friends!”
“You’re a martyr! Every one of your problems can be blamed on a single group of non-believers/scientists who are making ‘Merika awful! Oooooh! They’re so mean and arrogant!”
Pathetic.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Ben,
I am very impressed with your willingness to take up such a contentious issue. As you note, and the links on your site establish, this issue of Design in nature is heavily persecuted within the academic institution. But the persecution and ridicule transcends the so-called bastions of intellectual inquiry into the media and even the arts. Your starring in this documentary will not only get you expelled by the academics but the good’ol regular folk who recieve their indoctrination further down the line. You are going to go from, “Yeah Ben Stein, that hilarious guy from Ferris Bueller and comedy central…” to, “that Ben Stein is just a religious fundamentalist bigot who hates science and the establishment clause…guy” But to others like myself, you are taking on the role of public-intellectual-freedom-fighter.
Thanks Ben.
T. Russ
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am
So, lemme get this straight. You equate two of the greatest scientists ever and their need to get backing ( money ) so they had to pander to the church. Never mind that they were one step in the “god of the gaps” philosophy. If it can’t be explained, “god did it”. Thus a gap in knowledge is filled by god. And every scientist that has come along after them has improved upon their ideas and succeeded where they failed. Can you imagine Dr Saulk saying that god created polio and therefore, we don’t need a vacination against it? If creationists want to be accepted as “real” sceintists, they should pony up real and I mean REAL scientific proof that there is a creator. So far they haven’t and they can’t. To quote Prof. Richard Dawkins “If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new Newton? Of course, we know the answer. You can’t do it. You are a fake.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Ben, Ben, Ben. I’m truly disappointed to see you involved in this misguided project.
I always liked you; I used to love to watch Win Ben Stein’s Money. That’s why it truly saddens me to see you lend your name to such intellectually bankrupt and vacuous twaddle. And, yes, Ben, it is idiocy. You parrot every creationist talking point, from science supposedly “suppressing” intelligent design to that jaw-droppingly dumb thing you said in one of the trailers about scientists “not even being allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
Come on; give me a break.
Stick to politics and economics, Ben; you clearly have little understanding of science.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Hey Ben, the Pope called. He said, “Ben Stein is an absurdity.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hey, Ben, why’d your webmaster delete the comment I posted about 20 minutes ago? It showed up right away; now I come back to see if anyone else has commented and it’s gone.
For someone complaining about scientists “censoring” intelligent design, that seems rather hypocritical, don’t you think.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
Everyone has that ability. They just don’t have the ability to force other people to believe them, and that’s a very good thing since we see quite clearly what happened when the theists you support had that kind of power to abuse.
Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.
This is an assertion rather shot to pieces by Einstein’s own statements regarding the place of a creator-deity in his cosmogeny:
“To assume the existence of an unperceivable being … does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.” - Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
“I don’t try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” - Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
One hopes that the film will be more accurate than this screed is.
Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
No, I didn’t, and I find such an assertion highly suspect. Being an intelligent design advocate is not, per se, something that unfits one from being employed in any capacity. I’m sure that an ID supporter can run an autoclave, for example, as well as any non-ID supporter. I would probably look at this person askance when looking for a research assistant, however, because anyone who couldn’t torpedo the ID arguments below the waterline is frankly not that knowledgable in biology. Furthermore, since the ID advocates have shown an inclination to try to shore up a conclusion they’ve already reached with evidence, rather than the other way around, anyone who believed that this backwards approach has any utility would be someone who could also come to his unshakeable conclusions on other matters and manipulate the evidence to reach the desired outcome.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Dear Brother Ben Stein,
I have prayed for many years for the rehabilitation of your Soul, and now I awake this morning from my night of Visions to find that He has answered our prayers!!!
Praise Him!!
May I be the first to welcome you and give you praise Under the Glory of God, for using the obvious talents He has given you to proselytize for His Good Deeds in this Universe that He has given man to oversee as His Dominion.
And speaking of Dominion, I will pray to God that you seek His Glory in the representation of Rep Tom Tancredo as our next President of the United States Under God, and NOT Sen. Sam Brownback, who is like the demon in an angels clothing, but not exactly.
You see, in addition to many other policies Rep. Tom will enact a 100 Day Policy that will include not only planting land mines on our borders to Stop Illegal Immigration and roaming packs of mexican rape squads, but also, on day 62 if I am not mistaken, as President, Rep. Tom Tancredo will put an end to Political Correctness.
So I am really looking forward to your new movie, as I am certain it will energize the Tancredo for President campaign, maybe even more than the recent slaughter of Negro American Citizens in Newark by a pack of illegal mexican death banditos!!!
Yours in the Glory of His Name and Country
RPTH
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
..and Ben Stein joins “Liars for Jesus.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Oh golly, I am sure looking forward to seeing your film! I know you will really skewer those fundamentalist evilutionists with the proof of intelligent design. Thank you for making this film, I know the FSM supports you in this noble cause.I plan on wearing my pirate finery to the opening night.
Ramen!
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Sorry Ben, but you’re completely and utterly wrong. The recent legal case in Dover, for example, did NOT deny the teaching of creationism in the schools. It said that there was no evidence for intelligent design and that ID does not meet the criteria to be considered science and therefore should not be taught in school SCIENCE classes.
The judge ruled (correctly) that the only arguments that the ID folks were able to put forth were either “Straw man” fallacies where they misquoted what evolution was in order to shoot it down, or they were “false dichotomy” fallacies. i.e. “If Science can’t explain this (or more likely if the ID proponent’s knowledge of science is not sufficient to explain it) then the alternative must be ‘God did it’”. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not science.
The judge in the case specifically left open the possibility of ID being taught in a class on religion as a cultural influence or in a class which surveys various religious beliefs. Also, the judge was not a liberal activist judge but a conservative judge appointed by GW Bush himself.
Sorry, but your facts and premise are completely wrong.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
There is no controversy. ID has no theory, no predictions, no data. It is not science, therefore the scientific community does not address it. This trite film is an example of the desperation of the ID movement. ID will can never be taken seriously because they believe that they may claim the authority of science while refusing to submit to the very rules that allow that authority to exist.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
ps
I forgot to mention, that Rep Tom Tancredo, on Day 33 of his 100 day plan, will put in their place once and for all those evilutionists who just a go about persecuting Good Christian Scientists and Philosophers as if they have a Soul so darkened by the Demon, that no light ever will escape.
So your movie clearly will have certain economies of scale and synergies with the Tancredo for President campagin and I strongly urge you to contact their representatives. By all means, DO NOT answer the phone if someone from the Sam Brownback for President campaign calls you–they cannot be trusted any more than you would trust an elite secular progressive college professor.
-rpth
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.
Where do I get this thought-detection device that you are referring to? Where do I get the ban stick? Where are these people being banned from? May I have a list? Are they not allowed to do experiments? To gather data?
My dear man, science is not done by press release. It is done by gathering data. The reason intelligent design is mocked is not because there is anything inherently stupid about the idea. It is because there is simply no data to support it. And yet its supporters continue to howl “But we wanna be scientists!”. Go ahead. Be a scientist. Gather data. Prove that you’re right. Until then, good luck.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
What a disappointment. Freedom is God given? Why doesn’t God give freedom to all the people of the world? Are we going to discount the blood spilled and lives sacrificed by so many over the years to win that freedom?
Ben, scientific discoveries and innovations can’t be squelched forever by the establishment. If there is indeed some conspiracy of thought control on the part of “big science” (and I can’t imagine why there would be) then merely through plodding along, doing good science, Intelligent design backers will be shown to be right all along. Dr. Behe has a successful career, writing books, doing science, etc. If his science is good, then it will speak for itself.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Wah? What an IDiotic premise!
Ben, you should feel ashamed - pandering to the IDiots. Freedom is NOT being suppressed by the scientific community! ID has nothing to show. ID is all smoke and mirrors for the credulous, it is not science, because it is not testable. ID and it’s lying backers may not admit it, but ID is all about getting the Bible and Creationism back into American schools. It’s a pipe dream backed by theocrats, and BTW - it’s illegal too, thanks to the Constitution.
I suggest you and your religious morons that back ID move to Iran if you want to live in a theocracy. Have a good time there.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
This movie will be a travesty. It will not make money. It will be ridiculed everywhere. This will go down as Ben Stein’s folly. Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Not falsifiable. Not science. See ‘Sober, Elliott. “What is Wrong with Intelligent Design,” The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.’
Can anti-ID types be shrill and strident on the issue? Sure. So can pro-ID types. Doesn’t have any bearing on the truth or worth of their statements.
The issue is: can the potential involvement of a designing force be proven or disproven in the scientific arena? The answer is no.
Further, any approach that says “Can’t understand; God must’ve done it,” hinders scientific inquiry, feeds anti-intellectual sentiment and further erode’s America’s admirable advancements in science and technology. Also see ‘Charles P. Pierce, “Greetings from Idiot America,” Esquire Magazine: November 2005.’
Ben, think of your country. I mean it: think. Being great with trivia is one thing, but come-on, THINK.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Come on, Ben. You’re a smart guy, let’s stop pretending that there is anything scientific, rational, or even honest about intelligent design.
Do you seriously want our children to be taught the myopic tautology that “god did it?” Do you not realize that science is a meritocracy? Do you not realize that science is also about open inquiry, and that it is intelligent design and religion that are doctrinally opposed to open inquiry?
We’re talking about the difference between empirical validation (science) and authoritarian validation (religion). It’s that simple.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Of course universities and scientific institutions discriminate, that’s why science does. If a person makes a claim and can’t back it up with research then it is rejected. Creationists can’t present any science to support their myth so they aren’t published. Universities have the old saying, “publish or perish” and that’s what happens to creationists.
Why should the rules be any different for creationists? We give special treatment to retarded people so the creationists are just demanding that we treat them like retards. Well, that sounds fair enough.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Those who claim the universe was created by an “intelligent designer” need to 1) prove the existence of such a designer using the scientific method and 2) explain who created the designer. If they fail, their “hypothesis” should be discarded and they should indeed be expelled. This mockumentary surely must be a joke!
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Ben,
The problem with your ‘arguements’ here is, quite simply, that they are fallacious. The only ’suppression’ occurring is that scientists are asking the pseudo-scientists to actually have some demonstrable proof, or even experiments that can be conducted, to validate their points of view. This ineivatably leads to the “they’re picking on me arguement!!” by those individuals (namely, *ALL* intelligent designers.
Science is tough. You must always, always, always be ready to prove what you’re saying and why you’re saying it - merely stating that *you* don’t believe it doesn’t mean a thing. Prove it. Demonstrate it. Put something behind your words other than nefarious intentions, snake oil, and misplaced ad hominem arguements. Become the teacher that you played in Ferris Bueller.
But I doubt that you will. And neither will so many others that only listen, think and do what their priests, bosses and leaders tell them and never think for themselves. You’re incorrect in so many ways but one is particularly striking - your comment, “Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement”. Do you know one thing that’s even more basic? The ability to think for one’s self - otherwise, Gallileo would have blindly accepted the church’s statements and continued on (odd how even back then, it’s the religious ‘thinkers’ of the time supressing thought, eh?)
Donald Wheeler
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Question: Kenneth Miller is a prominent biologist who wrote a whole book about God. He has not, to my knowledge, been fired or disciplined in any way. In fact, he’s one of the most prominent and well respected biologists in the field. There are numerous other examples of openly religious biologists and scientists working today, many of whom have written extensively about their faith. The worst most of them have endured is criticism, to which they responded in kind. That doesn’t seem to square very well with the thesis that scientists are routinely banned from working just because they are openly religious.
Couldn’t it be that the particular scientists you highlight in the film have something more in common about their work or their conduct than merely that they were religious?
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You know Ben, if the intellegent design community would quit whining and do some, you know, science they just might get a little more respect. BTW, loved the way you kicked the crap out of that strawman. I hope that the move is better than your arguements.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I can not wait to see this movie. Finally someone will stand up to those crazy proponents of ID “theory.” Even if it takes unintentional satire to do it. Thank you Mr. Stein.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
What nonsense!
Anyone can say whatever they want; but if you’re going to propose a scientific theory, or publish a paper in a scientific journal you have to back it up with actual research, including empirical observations, statistical analysis and, you know, facts and stuff….
No one is being censored for talking about God; but they ain’t gonna get published if they can’t back their ideas up with something substantial. It’s called having standards; the Right Wing in America should stop whining and learn what that means.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Dear Mr. Stein,
Science (unlike you, apparently) needs evidence to believe something is real. Bring evidence for ID and we’ll be happy to examine them.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Two words- Dover, Pennsylvania.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
While I am generally a fan of both your acting and, often enough, some of your political statements (though not all) I am flabbergasted at this notion you present that Intelligent Design represents “freedom” from institutionalized thought or has had anything to do with the developments of knowledge and technology science has granted us. History shows quite clearly that the involvement of religion has repeatedly hindered science and the development of society. Using the argument that “God did it”, as Intelligent Design does, effectively removes the questions and inquiry you reference. Additionally I have known many scientists and biologists and none have ever remarked that their thoughts are censored regarding religion. Contrarily the Intelligent Design movement often forces their supporters to sign a statement saying they will ignore all evidence that does not fit into their world-view. That is not science. That is limiting inquiry. And that is why I am astounded that you, a very intelligent man, can possibly make these claims. They are directly opposite of the reality of the situation. Thank you for your time and attention.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Wow Ben you’re so cool, trying to mask your religious views as Science and yourself as a rebel (perhaps you should read a little about the history of Science and free inquiry in Europe?). No, you don’t get “banned” for suggesting that God may have done something. Most theistic scientists probably believe that God directed evolution. I’m disappointed that you don’t know that Science isn’t something meant to confirm your religion–or anyone else’s religion–but I shouldn’t expect any more from someone who cares more about creating propaganda than they do promoting actual free inquiry.
Sincerely,
Alex Caro
High school freshman
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I’m terribly sorry you have wasted so much time and effort (and money?) creating this film if this is really your premise. I’m an evolutionary biologist and I believe in God and that the universe is a divine creation… Had no problems with the thought police so far.
What is not “allowed” as a scientific explanation is “God did it”. That has no explanatory or predictive power since God could do whatever whenever… pretty useless for creating technology or predicting what may happen. If Newton said “the apple fell because God made it”, then we’d have no Law of Universal Gravitation since God could make something fall or not at his whim. I hope you get my drift.
There are at least thousands of scientists who believe in a divine creator and still manage to not resort to “God did it” or the equivalent “magic happened” when they do their work. These scientists have no problem publishing, getting tenure, or enjoying a beer with atheist colleagues.
Oh, one more thing. Just ask yourself, “what is the ultimate divine revelation: the Bible, or the Creation itself?” It basically boils down to trusting the authors (and translators) of an old book with at least partially questionable origins, or the evidence provided to your own senses and reason. Seem pretty like a pretty obvious choice if you believe, as I do, that God created the universe and granted us the ability to at least partially understand it.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Ben,
I’m not going to accuse you of intentionally misleading your audience, because I’m no mind-reader and I have more respect for you than that, but just judging from the trailer for this film and from your initial blog entry, it looks to me as if the end result is misleading — intentionally or not.
Your blog and trailer seem to rely on scare tactics and also seem to overstate the intentions of some fringe minority. I hope that’s not your intention. I expect better of you. Perhaps I’m just reading into things. But as I said, that certainly *seems* to be the case.
Case in point: one of the most respected evolutionary biologists working today is Dr. Kenneth Miller, who was key to the anti-Intelligent Design case in Dover, despite being a devout and very open Christian. There isn’t a single person trying to keep him from expressing his religious views. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him give a single talk in which he didn’t state up front his religious beliefs. But he’s quick to point out that his faith — while not contradicted by science — also isn’t supported by it. If it were, it would stop being faith, wouldn’t it?
Therefore, I feel your assertion that some Darwinian orthodoxy is suppressing religious expression in the scientific community is overstated. Name one person in the scientific community trying to stifle Miller. Just one.
Furthermore, I think you’re using the words “Intelligent Design” in a manner different from which most biologists and the like understand it. There’s no doubt that Kenneth Miller believes in a creator. What he and many of us fight against is the political movement dubbed “Intelligent Design,” spearheaded by Michael Behe and William Dembski and the like at the Discovery Institute. The objection to “Intelligent Design” isn’t an objection to genuine inquiry as to whether or not there is evidence of design in nature, but rather the sneaky, underhanded, deceitful and obfuscatory tactics practiced by Behe and his ilk in trying to further their political agenda.
Seriously, Ben — religious freedom is one thing, but don’t confuse an effort to keep bad pseudo-science (and bad theology) out of the classroom and scientific journals with an effort to suppress religion. And don’t rely on semantical tricks in your efforts to expose the so-called Darwinian Orthodoxy.
You’re way better than that, my friend, and far too intelligent to get caught up in this steamroller of deceit.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
How about an economic theory based instead of on observation of markets and causal relationships, but rather one espousing it’s at the whim of a monetary fairy. Once there is evidence for a god, one of the thousands currently worshipped, we can start discussing what it can and cannot be capable of.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The problem with creationist “inquiry” is that it’s not free inquiry at all. They begin with preconceived ideas and try to “carve the foot to fit the shoe” by cherry picking evidence and using it to bolster their preconceptions. This happens quite often in the fringes of science (pseudoscience). Basic scientific inquiry - the development of hypotheses and theorems - requires an open mind. This is why evolutionary theory is such a messy business. It is constantly changing (evolving) as new developments occur.
I’m not much of a writer so I’ll let more qualified people speak my mind.
Isaac Asimov sums it up:
“Science is a process of thought, a way of looking at the Universe. It consists of the gathering of observations that can be confirmed by others using other instruments at other times in other ways. From these confirmed observations, consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out by logical methods generally agreed upon. These consequences and conclusions are tentative and can be argued over by different people in the field and modified or changed altogether if additional, or more subtle, observations are made. There is no belief held in advance of such observations and conclusions except that observations can be made, that consequences and conclusions can be reasoned out, and that the Universe can, at least to a degree, be made comprehensible in this fashion. (If these assumptions are not true, then there is no way of using the mind at all.)
Creationism, on the other hand, begins with a strong and unshakable faith to the effect that all the words of the Bible are literally true and cannot be wrong. The function of observation and logic is then confined to the confirmation of the literal meaning of the words of the Bible. Any observation, or any course of logic, which seems to argue against those words must then be false and must be dismissed. Any conclusions of science that seem to argue against those words must also be false and must be dismissed. To find some excuse to do this without seeming entirely arbitrary, creationists do not hesitate to distort scientific findings, to misquote scientists, and to play upon the emotions and prejudices of their unsophisticated followers. Whatever creationism is, then, it is not scientific.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Stein has chosen a path that condones pseudoscience over science.
“Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.
Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of racial purity
Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and sensibility;
In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or suffering
Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy war
Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.” -Rory Coker
To turn Stein’s own words on himself:
“Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.”
Mr. Stein, if we had relied on religious based thinking to advance scientific knowledge none of your advances would have occurred. In fact, if the past teaches us anything at all - it is that religion does more to quell freedom of inquiry.
You seem to think that there is a conspiracy of scientists and educators to deny God. Not true. It has been my experience to find that many or even most of these folks believe in some form of deity. They also believe that science is under attack.
Patricia J. Princehouse wrote:
“People ask me, Why pour so much energy into protecting science education? Why not fight for literacy generally or any of a thousand other educational issues? I have two answers. One is easy: I know about evolution, so it makes sense that I would work on what I know best. The second is harder to grasp. And that is that freedom of religion is the bedrock foundation of liberty in this country. If we allow certain special-interest religious groups to co-opt the public school science classroom, to use it as a vehicle for converting children to religious views their parents don’t hold, if we allow them to spout outright lies about the nature and content of science, what do we really have left? If you can lie about science and get away with it, you can lie about anything.
Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg or, as the creationists put it, the leading edge of “the wedge.” The wedge they are seeking to drive through the heart of American democracy. The lies about science are not limited to evolution. Every day more lies about science seep into public consciousness. Lies about stem cell biology, lies about global warming, about clean air and water, lies about sexuality, about conception and contraception, lies about the effects of hurricanes on metropolitan infrastructure.
The war on science is a war on democracy itself. And the special weapons and tactics are rhetorical. The enemies of democracy use the language of tolerance to attack it from inside. Why, they ask, are we “censoring” the evidence for “intelligent design”? Why do we deny our teachers the “right” to use their “academic freedom” to teach “critical analysis” of evolution. Isn’t it only fair to teach both the evidence for and against evolution? All these clever ploys play well in the media on this issue and many, many others, and we will see these word games more and more in coming years. I call it the “orange is the new pink” strategy; every time the public cottons on to a catch term like “creation science” or “intelligent design,” they change to a more neutral-sounding term like “critical analysis” or “evidence against.” But defenders of American freedom are learning to stand up and say no, it really is fair to forbid teachers to lie to students, to prohibit school boards from using the power of the state to convert children to other peoples’ religions. Tolerance requires judgment.”
True freedom of scientific inquiry demands that all theories are testable. This is the basic tenant of the Enlightenment traditions that brought about modern scientific epistemology.
-Charles Bailey
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
is this serious or a parody?
i ask because Mr Stein seems far too intelligent to fall for ID’s claims about “discrimination” or “censorship” within the scientific community
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Wow… You seem to be WAY off
It’s not that Science is not allowed, it is that there is very little evidence to support Intelligent Design! What little “evidence” there is, it A: comes from a book that has been modified, rewritten, and translated many times, and being slightly changed each time the current version may have no similarity to the original, or B: is just some of the holes in Darwinism.
Darwinism on the other hand has fossil records. It has carbon dating. It has studies. It has a multitude more evidence than ID.
Stop whining that scientists aren’t taking ID seriously. If you want people to consider ID, find EVIDENCE!
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
It sounds like philosophy to me Ben, not science. You are perhaps confusing the two. Science is concerned with natural world:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
If God exists then surely it is outside of the physical universe?
Also, I don’t thin you understand what ‘hypothesis’ means. In scientific terms, it doesn’t mean belief:
“A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.”
Did they test their hypothesis? Did it become a theory?
People are of course free to believe what they would like. Science is actually evidence based, and ID has none - it is simply an argument from incredulity.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
You of all people should truly should be ashamed of yourself. I thought you were a smarter man than this.
There is nothing to this ‘intelligent design’ business but wishful thinking on the part of god botherers. Elite scientists have looked at what evidence there is and have rejected this nonsense out of hand — it’s not that they will lose their jobs or grants and so on — it’s that they’re rational, thinking, people who understand science. Plugging “goddidit” into areas we don’t yet understand isn’t science. It’s childish thinking.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
You, sir, are quite possibly the most misguided propaganda hound I have ever encountered. ID ‘theories’ are rejected not out of hand, merely because the concept of a creator is somehow offensive, but simply because they are not theories. A hypothesis has two main attributes neccessary to qualify it as a hypothesis and not merely speculation;
1) the hypothesis must predict a result - ie, I hypothesize that if I eat something when I am hungry, I will no longer be hungry… or, more abstractly, I hypothesize that the lack of food for a period of time can cause hunger. Thus predicting that a) if I eat, my hunger will subside, and b) if I don’t eat, my hunger will appear or get worse
2) a hypothesis must be falsifiable, able to be proven false. example, if I hypothesize that if I am hungry, and I drink water, my hunger will subside. I then proceed to drink water and my hunger remains, thus proving my hypothesis false, I must then create a new hypothesis that accounts for this new information, ie, I must eat food to satiate my hunger.
ID theories contain neither of these elements - one cannot disprove the existence of a creator, therefore it is not a hypothesis, merely an unfounded belief, superstition, or opinion - as the creationist faction has a tendency to say, it is wrong to teach an opinion as a fact.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
There are hundreds of papers published each month with new data on evolution by natural selection, versus close to zero per year on intelligent design (see link). If intelligent design crackpots had the data, they’d submit it for publication. If they had evidence of discrimination, they’d sue. They don’t have either, so they whine.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
In science, if you want your ideas about the natural world to be treated as a valid hypothesis, let alone a valid theory, you must present empirical evidence that verifies your idea.
Intelligent Design, as it is written about by authors such as Michael Behe, and championed by organizations such as the Discovery Institute, struggles in its effort to qualify even as valid scientific conjecture, as some of the foundational premises ID guesswork sees near uniform dispute by nearly every credentialed scientist in the pertinent fields, including some who personally hold deep religious beliefs, and subscribe to the notion of a creator deity.
Everyone who believes in a creator deity essentially believes in “intelligent design,” broadly defined. Although atheists and other non-religious individuals are disproportionately represented in the sciences, there is no reason to assume a conspiracy is responsible for the disparity, and there are still many religious people working in the academia and the sciences.
It should not be surprising that funding for the idea that nature is directly influenced by an unobserved, unobservable entity is not always readily forthcoming from traditional sources of scientific research grants, given that the first step in science is to OBSERVE. It should not be surprising that so-called scientists who are either ignorant of the scientific method or willfully ignore it are denied tenure.
It is a sad state of affairs that a celebrity intellectual like Ben Stein has decided to come out on the side of the enemies of science and obfuscate the truth.
Galileo and Einstein are invoked, stating that they “operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”
While Galileo did believe in an intelligent creator deity, he did not see any need to inject his faith into his practice of science. Galileo said that “The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”
From this I believe that Galileo would disapprove of a “god of the gaps” philosophy invading the domain of scientific inquiry.
You statements about Einstein’s beliefs are even more egregiously misleading. Einstein himself has explicitly stated that he did not believe in a personal god and what he refers to God with figurative language, he is essentially talking about the laws of nature, never indicating that he believes there is any sort of sentience or intelligence.
Science is not a democracy. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a celebration of multicultural values. It’s not about emotion, intuition or desires. Science, essentially is a meritocracy of ideas, where doubt and skepticism are (ideally) institutionally and methodically applied with the greatest possible degree of rigor. This means that bad ideas, ideas that are inconsistent with the evidence, have no direct evidential support, or have no predictive power/utility are generally discarded as irrelevant and non-scientific.
The sooner you understand this, the better off you’ll be.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Here’s how the ID community handles censorship / different viewpoints:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc995ed927ee59;act=ST;f=14;t=5141
Thanks.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
B.S.: “This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
Inquiring about a “higher power” is not science, it involves the supernatural. The supernatural doesn’t belong in the science class because by definition science does not deal with the supernatural because it is beyond nature. You may as well ask why the supernatural is not discussed in economics class. There are classes were the supernatural should be discussed those classes are theology and history. Regardless, saying that a “higher power” is involved in the universe is not helpful, it answers absolutely nothing and has been a stumbling block for past and present religious scientists. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0 *
B.S.: Einstein’s god
Einstein’s god was the god of Spinoza, it was simply a metaphor for that which we do not yet know. He wasn’t referring to an old man with a beard in the sky and that is clear from his own records.
B.S.: “EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.”
And how do you explain all of those religious scientists working today? There are plenty of people like Francis Collins that are doing quite well. Obviously they do not ALL keep it a secret and we would certainly know if ALL of them were banned/fired. But wait, first you say that a scientist “would” be banned, and then a little later you say that it “can happen.” You went from “would” to “can”. Nice switch there. http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html
Seriously, when does it end? Should chemistry class be supplemented with alchemy class? Should astronomy class be supplemented with astrology class? R. Feynman famously said, “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.”
* = Description: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief Conference, 2006. “Among other things, Tyson asserts that the religiosity of some of history’s greatest scientists and their willingness to invoke the philosophy of intelligent design limited the scope of their inquiry into the natural world, to the detriment of scientific progress in general.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Can’t wait to see the movie. I’m sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.
Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power. The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence. Only fools demand evidence to believe something.
Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don’t worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to finally see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States. All Science So Far!!!
Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian. Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold. In short, it is all about the maths.
See here for more about censorship and Darwinism.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cc9be3d9ac55c5;act=ST;f=14;t=5141
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Greetings Ben - thanks many times over. When Carl Sagan famously said ‘This universe is all there ever was,is or ever will be’ (or something like that), he wasn’t making a scientific case but a philosophic one because there is no way he could possibly know that! Yet all orthodox science today is founded on that principal of blind naturalism. And they think IDers are the deluded ones! Gotta go, thanks again, take care, Shalom & L’Chaim
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
So, somebody has enough balls to expose what might just be science’s biggest hoax.
Groovy.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
Carl Sagan
Have you perhaps considered that mere ostracization is far more indicative of idiocy than it is of conspiracy or malice?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The reason an “intelligent designer” isn’t considered is because there’s been NO EVIDENCE for one.
How do you test a theory of a “god” designer if you can’t show “god” exists? And if you could (and you won’t), science would ask how did the “designer” do its work?
Plenty of scientists serparate their belief in god from their work as scientists.
They understand that they hold an irrational faith. They also understand it would be pointless to assume a god in any hypostesis they test. Any modern scientist who fails to understand that duality, probably isn’t a very good scientist.
How many good geologists think the earth is 6,000 years old?
Good luck with a movie that shows how little some religious people understand science.
Many of us will have a good laugh. It’ll be alot like “Jesus Camp”. Well, maybe not quite as scary,
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Kudos Ben. Thanks for putting this together. I linked to it at my blog. We all anticipate much from this. Let’s hope that it has the impact it can.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Its about time that this issue got addressed. Its beyond the fundemental issue of God versus primordial soup; its about the fredom of expression, the freedom to think, the freedom to choose.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Go Ben! Very encouraged by what you are doing and will do all I can to get friends and family to see your new doc. opening weekend.
Thank God for men like you!
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Ben,
As a longtime fan of yours I must say that I feel more than a little betrayed and offended by your involvement in this project. I felt from reading of your history and your politics that you were someone who would be able to see through the shroud of ignorance and false mysticism of the so-called “Intelligent Design” movement.
I am particularly disturbed by this sudden and ironic attack by ID proponents on real working scientists. All that you’ve said in this blog and all that’s been said in defense of Intelligent Design is the real affront to free inquiry. It was proven in a court of law (Dover, PA) that the Intelligent Design movement is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to suppress genuine scientific inquiry.
I’m glad to see in your blog that you’ve abandoned the pretense that ID is not a religious movement, but you’ve only gone halfway into the light. Now you must also abandon the intellectually bankrupt position that Intelligent Design has anything at all in common with real science.
I don’t expect to change your mind, but I do hope that interest of the free exchange of ideas you would allow this comment to remain on the site for all those that would see the other side of this issue.
A fan(EXPELLED)
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Ben,
I’m excited about this project, and can’t wait to see what you’ve got cooking. I’ve doing my own small part to wage the debate for intellectual freedom, and to point out that evolution itself is based on unprovable and untestable assumptions about the unrepeatable, unobservable past, and therefore just as much of a philosophical belief (religion?) as creationism or intelligent design.
I do hope you will make a distinction between intelligent design and creationism? ID is totally compatible with modern-day evolutionary theory and merely asserts that some Intelligent Designer got the ball rolling. Creationism assumes that God created, and that He created roughly six thousand years ago.
Your voice is a favorite among many conservatives, and many will be glad to get your perspective on this important issue.
Thanks for reading, and for making the project!
Dave
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm
What a sad, sad fate for one of the conservatives I used to respect. Do you really believe that there are no scientists who believe in god? I’m sorry to see you acting as a catspaw for the religious right, and their bogus ideas of what science is all about.
I won’t be watching reruns of Ben Stein’s Money anymore. It would make me sick to see you on screen and think what a pathetic failure of intellect I was watching.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Science, by definition, is restricted to the investigation of measurable natural/physical phenomena and cannot invoke a supernatural explanation. The “intelligent designer made it” is not a fruitful theory in that it does not allow for predictions as no one knows when and where the entity in question will strike again. Furthermore, science does not preclude the existence of an intelligent designer, but merely places this supernatural entity beyond the scope of legitimate natural investigation. Here in Montana we say, “Trust in God, but tie up your horse”! While many in the academic arena feel one’s personal beliefs should not impact their career, if their personal beliefs are at odds with the foundational research within their field, they might expect their beliefs to be trumped by the weight of evidence. Would a Holocaust denier make an appropriate professor of WWII history? Should a class spend valuable time debating such a “controversy”?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I guess this movie shoots down the notion that ID is a secular idea huh? Bwwwwaaaahahahahahaha
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Dear Ben,
Thank you! Finally we have some real media attention to bringing the Bible back to school! It’s the way that America was designed, I hate that these atheists want to take our faith out of schools and bring in their own. They have been chipping away at our beliefs, one by one.
While encouraging healthy debate about Creationism versus evolution is wonderful, I strongly encourage you to cover all the other facets of science that try to undermine our Faith, including heliocentrism, ‘carbon dating’ the earth to 5 billions years old, and the Big Bang. For the bible says:
Psalm 93:1 ‘The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.’
96:10 ‘Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.’
Chronicles 16:30 ‘Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.’
Psalm 104 ‘Bless the Lord … Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.’
Ecclesiastes 1:5 ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth’
Thank you,
Yelena
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
Newton could not explain a certain motion of the planets and so ascribed the effect to God. Einstein came along and knocked poor God out of the box.
You offer very little to support your claim. Your logic is also self-disputed by the fact that Einstein did both publish his works in America and get grants in America. The straw man argument for Galileo and Newton will remain just a weak supposition.
Ben….did you really write or sign your name to this screed? It doesn’t sound like you at all.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I am eagerly awaiting this release. If it delivers what it says it will - I look forward to finally having an open debate on the facts and the merits of Intelligent Design. Which I find believable and compelling.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You confuse oppression with rejection. The ideas proposed by ID are not ignored because they are threatening, but because they are not scientific - refusing to allow ID to be taught as serious science is no different to excluding astrology, tarot-reading or feng-shui. Academic freedom does apply, and it ensures that proponents of ID have the right to speak their ideas - which they do, as this movie does. But freedom to speak is not a requirement for others to listen, and ID will never have serious scientific credability so long as its core arguments remain as flimsy as they are.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
This is a joke, right? Please tell me that this is a joke. ..
If not, Mr. Stein you should know that you are being used by some rather unsavory and unscrupulous characters. Their mendacity is legendary; they have no shame. People should be AND ARE completely free to believe whatever they want and even to pursue research to prove whatever beliefs they have, however odd or unusual they may sound. But that’s not what’s happening here. So-called “Intelligent Design” advocates are attempting nothing less than the overthrow of the scientific method in favor of religious doctrine. Read the Wedge document, Mr. Stein. Educate yourself about what these people really want.
Science works by method, not by PR or popular vote. When Intelligent Design proponents put together an actual theory and start doing real research (in other words, actually doing SCIENCE), then the scientific community will begin to take them seriously. So far, they have put forth vague ideas and poor arguments, all of which have been examined and found wanting. But instead of working diligently to patch the holes and strengthen their arguments, they cry “victim!” and mount massive PR campaigns. Please Mr. Stein; I believe you to be a man of integrity. Don’t allow yourself to be used by these people for their anti-science, anti-human agenda.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I’m curious how the producers of the movie explain that they interviewed some people for a movie called “Crossroads” and it’s now called “Expelled”?
Just wondering.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hello Mr. Stein,
I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the “appearance” of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.
These are exciting times.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Speaking of censoring and suppression - why was P.Z. Myers* interviewed by your associate producer under false pretenses? Is there a reason you need to lie?
*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
How about instead of wasting money making this movie, you use the money to fund actual research - research you claimed can’t get funded otherwise. The Templeton Foundation, supporters of connecting science and religion, could find no actual ID research to fund. It would seem that the problem is not losing jobs, suffering ridicule or being banned from the lab, the problem is there is no actual ID research. Just like there’s no cold fusion research and no perpetual motion machine research.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Oy vey! This is going to be Most Interesting.
As a constant observer of the Neo-Darwinian machine (and the Paleo-Darwinian machine before it got retooled into its present version), I found the trailers on this site exactly what I was hearing 30 years ago in my undergraduate days. My children report that the script hasn’t changed a whit, though (perhaps) the machine is updated.
I’ll be very, very interested to see how you develop this project.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
[…] I’m re-posting Ben’s first blog entry from yesterday. Hope you enjoy reading […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I thought I’d throw this response in:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/you_have_got_to_be_kidding_me.php
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
This subject has been a passion of mine in just the last year. I am elated that someone, especially an icon like Ben Stein, is standing up for what’s right. It is highly unlikely to see celebrities standing up for religion or to try to radically change what has been embedded in us for years as students. As a college student i am geared and ready to go to fight for as long as i have to to get people to at least acknowledge the fact that another possibility besides Darwinism exists. I applaud Ben Stein for taking a stand and am looking forward to helping out in tremendous ways to help this film succeed. I am so looking forward to being…EXPELLED!!!
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
So far I am not impressed, but merely amused at the lengths that the ID’ers will go to to be oppressed. Scientists are merely asking for a theory that can be tested, and until then the idea that Intelligent Design can be proven by misstating theories of evolution is what they are laughing at. They are not granting tenure to professors who have demonstrated that they will distort facts to make their case.
Until Intelligent Design can demonstrate how it can make the supernatural as demonstrable as a natural phenomenon (which is how science works) it will be laughed at and not called science.
The whole idea that thoughts are being suppressed is a bit of overblown rhetoric, don’t you think?
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Science is discriminatory, not against age, race or gender but against nonsense. Evolution occurred, we can see the evidence that life on earth started simple and has become more complex over time. There is still discussion over the mechanisms through which it worked but it did happen. Creationists are people who put a set of ancient myths before modern science. As even they recognise that science is pushing their dogma further into a corner they have tried to re-label that dogma as “intelligent design” and claim that it is science. Don’t get upset that we can see through the charade.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Many practicing scientists are devout Christians, and are accepted and respected by the scientific community at large, as are scientists of many other faiths. The people who Ben Stein wants to conflate with this larger class of Christians, the creationist subset of Protestant Americans, are however pretty much ignored by practicing scientists. For good cause.
Creationists are not scorned and ignored because they believe in a Creator.
Creationists are scorned and ignored because with rare exceptions they do not do science, and because they sometimes fight to suppress actual science that contridicts their religious convictions.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being. ”
This is a flat-out lie. Plenty of scientists believe in a divine creator, yet have no worries about losing their jobs. One of the more prominent ones, Ken Miller, is actually on the “anti-ID” side. The people who get persecuted are the ones that pitch a fit when their pet ideas are shown to not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I’m glad to hear about the film, and I’m glad you’re involved in it, Mr. Stein.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.”
This is true, but stated in a misleading way - what is basic to science is the ability (and a method) to inquire (about anything, at any time). To be clear and precise, this definition of the realm of science is not only basic, but also requisite: if an inquiry cannot be undertaken using the scientific method, it is not science (beyond this, the question of an inquiry’s validity is not a question for scientists - it could well be a valid philosophical/metaphysical/ legal/political/ ethical/moral/religious inquiry).
Whether the scientific inquiry is about the operation of the universe, the complexity of the bacterial flagellum, or the winners of the lottery next Tuesday, the scientific method is the same: propose an hypothesis, accumulate data (NOTE - one CANNOT do science without this step), assess the hypothesis with reference to the data, and repeat. Note: hypotheses are sometimes referred to as “predictions”, but I prefer to call them “expectations” about the fit between the “real” (=measurable) world (the data) and the hypotheses (the model).
All one need do is state the hypothesis(es) re: the intelligent designer (and, by preference, though not required for science, some suggestions about where and how relevant data might be collected), and then we’ll wait for the data collection and analysis to follow.
Hypotheses unsupported by data, whether contrary OR MISSING!!!, are of interest to science, but we should not dwell on them in science education, particularly at lower levels. There are enough well supported hypotheses (and supporting data) to fully occupy those developing scientists and others, without dwelling on the fringes of our scientific knowledge.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Wow. I could sorta understand you shilling for discredited right-wing economic theories, but *creationism*? Seriously? What a complete and utter tool.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
So… Christian mythology (the same puritanical, party-crashing, prohibitionist, “won’t somebody please think of the children”, wet blanket that has been sucking the fun out of life for 2000 years) is the “new” REBEL?? on the block. Puh-lease. How many times is Creationism going to repackage itself and come back for another round - still without a shred of evidence? And we wonder why kids in this country are failing at science…
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Hi Ben. I was just wondering if someone is moderating this blog. And, if so, do you think it is hypocritical to argue for free speech, but prevent critical comments from showing up on this blog?
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
[…] also noticed that Ben Stein has a blog post up at the movie’s website. Expecting my comment to be moderated (and it was held for […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Ben - I enjoy your Sunday NYT contributions, especially your emphasis on the treasure of friends and family.
You make an extraordinary claim in the Expelled post above. What scientists have been fired and lost tenure and grants for mentioning the possibility that god or a higher being created the physical laws of the universe?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I think this is a big ‘put-on’ everyone knows its OK to investigate but, when your ideas have proved vacuous people no longer want to fund them. Read Kitzmiller v. Dover for more info. I think Stein and company may actually be duping the religious fundies behind creationism/ID. I can’t wait to find out for sure
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Don’t hold back–give names. Whose career got ruined for being creationist scientist? As for Galileo–this stupid jeezus movie completely misread the meaning (of course). Namely, he had scientific PROOF (do creationists have proof outside “cause it’s in the Bible”?) which clashed with the established belief (based on an old book written by camel herders), and was forced to recant.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Bravo! Yes, public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters while supressing free inquiry and open debate in the field of science. What are the darwinist so afraid of? Those who have studied the issues think they know the answer. Darwinism does not rule modern biology because of “overwhelming evidence”. It rules primarily because of philosophical prejudice amongst a self appointed intellectual elite.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ben,
I hope your project gets much needed attention. Can’t wait till it comes out.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
My, how wrong one can be:
To quote:
“Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”
They worked under their belief, not any “hypohtesis,” as do probably the majority of evolutionary biologistts today.
Another errant line from the blog:
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
Completely false, and a bit bizarre. Indeed, I would help the first Intelligent Design researcher with a legitimate, testable hypothesis, to get their hypothesis tested and published. Alas, I’ve asked this for many years and have not a single taker.
Failed attempts to discredit evolutionary science, by the ICR, AIG, DI, and others, must take a serious turn … and actually do science, replete with hypotheses and hypothesis testing, before the scientific community can take them seriously.
Until then, they are just random and unguided voices in the wind.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Ben Stein in Hot-Pants for Intelligent Design
Expelled, a slick-looking documentary which looks to put a shiny new gloss on the Intelligent Design movement is due out this coming February. Though it went public a little while ago, the news that the Intelligent Design movement is going the Michael…
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
public institutions, supported by our tax dollars, are actively marginalizing descenters
Actually, the descenters are the majority in this “debate”.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
What a freaking moron. Come see RationalWiki for reasons why he’s wrong.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Mr. Stein,
Wow! I originally presumed that this film was a spoof, and thought it might be entertaining as such. I even thought the opening blog was very funny… until I later realized that you were serious.
Did you use freedom a dozen times on purpose? It’s like it was written for a Bush speech? Pandering to the uninformed that don’t know and don’t want to know.
I used to think highly of you, Mr. Stein. I actually thought you were intelligent, whatever you’re political leanings. Either you’ve been painfully misinformed, deluded or just plain losing your ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.
Do you know anything of science? Not only is ID not science, the movement as a whole is anti-science and based fully based in religion.
The ID movement deserves the same ridicule from science as does astrology. Is your next project going to be about getting astrology seen as science? You’re advocating a step back to the dark ages.
Here’s a tip… Do some of your own research. You might learn something and save yourself much embarrassment, although I think that’s too late.
Ken
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
As a member of the media I have been following the ID issue for a long time. I am looking forward to hearing your point of view. I sincerely hope it will advance fair and rational coverage of the debate.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I get a kick out of some of these typical, tired old knee-jerk, pre-rehearsed responses that clearly indicate the majority of the people responding so far have barely skimmed this site. I read nothing about religion on here, nor do I see crosses or scriptures or the word faith or religion even mentioned. Yet many of those posting seem to jump to the conclusion that this movie is religion based and that Ben Stein has flipped his lid and become some kind of evangelist for the creationist’s cause. He sounds like the same guy who wasn’t afraid to take the unpopular stand for the African-American Civil Rights Movement or one of the last know supporters of Richard Nixon to me. Say what you want about Ben but a “puppet” he is not and anyone who tries to imply as such must be that missing link you hard core evolutionists so desperately seek.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Well, nice to see the fanged monsters already blogging out over this. See the movie before judging. Read the evidence. Allow a thought inside your heads that might possibly, maybe, sort of, kind of, shed even a slightly different light on your entrenched secular worldview. Show a little tolerance and open-mindedness. If you dare.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Put another way, issues like this are dealt with here:
http://www.rationalwiki.com/wiki/Intelligent_design
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Um, I thought all those ID supporters testified in Dover, under oath, that Intelligent Design “theory” was SCIENCE, and did NOT, repeat NOT, have anything to do with God, Jesus, the Bible or Religion. . . .
Were they just, uh, lying to us when they testified to that . . .?
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
[…] Also: Ben Stein, despite having kept much of his money for himself on his game show, isn’t very bright when it comes to science. […]
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Lenny Flank (#94), they were in fact lying. Judge Jones found as much in the Kitzmiller trial. Get a hold of the case file and look to the following quote: “One consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID…. We disagree.” Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, n.7 727.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I was excited when I heard the news, although perusing the site made me somewhat less so. This debate is just too important, and too interesting, to get locked and loaded into yet another culture war issue.
If this is about how scientists have been treated unfairly for their views on intelligent design in the academy, I am all for it. Everyone should have a problem with this. But if its about the fight to get it in High School classrooms, I am less enthusiastic. Student textbooks should not be determined by political battles (I know, what sort of dreamworld am I living in?)
What I worry about is that, with this billed as a culture war issue, people will simply make up their minds based on whether they are red or blue, and not by fairly looking at what’s going on. Oh well…what else is new?
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
It isn’t very likely that chimpanzees typed out Shakespere’s complete works. But we have it, so they must have. Alas, this is incomplete. Helicoptering them half-way up Mount Improbable by giving them computers and such. First they need to accidentally produce an industrial revolution, followed by a accidental technological revolution, followed by an accidental personal computer with accidental software so they can then accidentally type Shakespere’s complete works, and then accidentally explain it to us because its value resides in its context. It only has the illusion of design. How foolish you anti-darwinist boobs. The truth plain for any open minded (scientific) person to recognize. If you disagree with the Great God of Purposelessness and his true prophet Darwin or even his pet poodle Dawkins, your ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia, general conservative naughtiness –and all other forms of venal ad hominem that can be conjured– make you suspect.
Best wishes
Glerb from the planet Deltroib
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Will the film present the ID explanation for men having nipples?
Or why whales have pelvises that serve no function, since they don’t walk?
Ben, you’re so smart. You may look back in embarrassment one day for letting these folks flatter you into this.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hey Ben. Is it true that your production company misrepresented the film you were making in your interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers? Thanks!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 am
Ken Chorst in Buffalo, you’ve made quite an assumption there. You’re more wrong than you could possibly know. Most of these monsters have tentacles and beaks, not fangs. I hope you feel properly chastened, and that your bias against the tentacled is less extreme than your bias against the fanged.
Oh yeah, also, many of them have already spent years studying evolutionary biology and intelligent design creationism, and know a fraud when they see it. Yes, sir, you presume much. Oh, you mention secularism? Why? Many commenters seem to be claiming that this movie has nothing to do with religion - in fact, the post immediately preceding your own claims exactly that. Are you calling that commenter a liar when you place the content of this film in opposition to secularism?
Now. Where was I? Ah yes, the freedom to choose, THE ALMIGHTY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. I can choose to believe that an acquired immune deficienty syndrom is due to an imbalance in my humors or to the vengeful stroke of an unforgiving deity, and not due to the debilitaing effects of a virus on my immune system, but dangit - I’d be wrong! But I’d defend to the death my right to be wrong!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
I love it!!!!!!!!!!! Ben you definately touched a nerve to have so many anti-ID guys responding so quickly. What the heck are they worried about? If the idea of ID getting more attention didn’t bother them so much they would just ignore it. Many people posting act like your claim that college students, professors and scientists can’t express their views is bogus. Maybe they should talk to Guillermo Gonzales who was denied tenure despite being vastly over qualified in comparison to what is the minimum expectations to receive tenure. This was simply due to his connection to ID. Truth be told most of the above hostile posters probably secretly applaud the denial of tenure but wouldn’t admit it publicly because they know in their heart that this kind of censorship of ideas is WRONG.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 am
I look forward to the movie. I’ve researched this issue from several angles and it is clear that we are not even close to answering the big questions with respect to the history of life on Earth. How did it start? Scientists are clueless. How did it develop? We have fragments of pre-historic finds that we try to weave a theory through.
Evolution? Then why did all the distinct body plans found on earth appear basically at the same time (The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ duringthe Cambrian time period)? One thing that is clear from our current interpretation of the data is that life did NOT slowly develop from a cell into a fish, into a lizard, into a bid over many millions of years. How do systems with 50+ distinct parts and functions slowly develop, when if one piece/function is missing it serves no purpose?
Intellegent Design? Yes there is seemingly evidence of design, but, besides it’s philisophical implications, so what? What are Scientists going to do differently if they accept this as true?
I look forward to the movie, because, the most troubling aspect that I’ve seen in my investigation is the lack of open-mindedness, especially on the evolutionary side. I find it a total joke when I hear someone say “I don’t believe in evolution, I now it’s true like the earth going around the sun”. How do you “know” it is a fact when the evidence is very circumstantial at best with the ‘big events’ in life history? Yes, it can explain how a bacteria changes its resistance or how a bird’s beak size can change over time, but, it is sorely lacking in describing how one gets from a cell to a human.
At least there are some evolutionists that are willng to admit that this is a weakness in their theory and are trying to sure their theory up. I would recommend anyone to the budding topic of ‘evolutionary development’ or ‘evo-devo’ for short.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Hahah. People who believe in god are wasting their lives.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Considering that the producer of this film arrived at most of his interviews with eeeeeeevvvil biologists and scientists by OUTRIGHT FRAUD (providing a false name for the movie, a false description, and false credentials) I am looking forward to seeing the deceitful Mr. Stein be grilled about this if he appears on talk shows. I don’t think his fake persona as Mr. nice genial professorial guy will survive long once people see what a fraud he is and how he is associated with such a deceptive production.
Click my website link in my name for direct testimony from one of the interview patsies, who ironically would have been more than happy to grant an interview if the film producers had been up-front about their intentions, but who isn’t keen on being used in a phony bit of creationism agitprop.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 am
I am looking forward to the movie . . . as the movie’s purpose states, it will address the concerns of silencing ANY scientific questioning of Darwinism (as long as proper scientific methods and journaled papers are followed) which is unhealthy in any liberal education and absurd to think otherwise.
I don’t understand the hysteria among the Darwin camp, of which I am one. The Pope even supports evoultionary theory. Chill. Let nature crystallize into theory. Darwinism is like arithmetic, it makes sense, but in the details - we’re just getting started. Let’s look at this further, let’s study it from all angle, with awe.
After all, nature is cleverer than we think.
Note to fanatical atheists: Remember, Dawkins is a 6.8 agnostic, not even an atheist.
Oh and speaking of atheists, such as PZ Myers. It’s a shame he was out-witted by Dilbert, even worse that the brilliant scientist was conjoured into ‘taping’ for this movie, but priceless for the gut-twisting he’ll go through in being sued, however lame the suit is; the fat-mouth deserves it. Maybe now he’ll be a bit more civil, unlike I.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 am
I am another who got onto this website from the article on Dawkins site about how Myers was tricked into providing an interview for this movie.
*http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
This says a great deal about what has gone into this movie, this site and the opinions they try to espouse.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
Ben, I’m a great fan of your thinking and your insight in your financial column, as well as an admirer of your past movies and such. You’re smart and very likable, and I would love to get to talk with you, I think it’d be incredibly enjoyable and informative.
I do hope this movie you’re doing doesn’t cross beyond its basic thesis. If the movie is a polemic against intellectual prejudice and discrimination in academia, fine, let’s have it. But soliciting interviews under false pretenses (as with PZ Meyers) does not speak well to the intellectual honesty of the undertaking.
An honest, open debate would be very illuminating, but it doesn’t appear that this is what your movie is about.
I’d have expected better from you.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Abbey
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 am
You see, Ben! You are absolutely right! Do you see how all these secular progressives seek to persecute you, to dishonor your good name, and to censor your activities??!!
All these scientist elitists can do is resort to name calling and derision, because they know the ‘theory’ of evilution cannot withstand the scrutiny of Intelligent Design and the Lord our God.
And when Rep. Tom Tancredo becomes President of Our Dominion, I wouldn’t be surprised if he closes the doors to all Liberal Universities by his 96th day, or earlier!!
The Sweet Justice of Lord Baby Jesus fills me with a Spirit that makes me Drop to my Knees in Thanks!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 am
Creationism is wishful-thinking, just like all the other aspects of religion. As with all creationist, Stein has nothing to work in his favor to benefit this pseudoscience nonsence.
This film will only help to make people who want creationism to be real, look just like those who think they have been abducted by Aliens from Alpha Centauri.
Here they are again, those creationist, trying to make a case without any evidence. All the evidence availiable works in the Sceientist and Atheist favor. Are we going to go through the Eye thing again or wing crap that Science/Biologist have already beat creationism up with?
Why ignore the evidence that clearly shows EVOLUTION HAPPENS and continues to happen? Creationist might as well beat their head against a wall.
God is just as imaginary as Santa Clause, Fairies and Unicorns.
I should be surprised about the nasty little trick those creationist played on Meyers, but I am not shocked at those tactics of Scheming and lying…as usual.
There is no god and you know it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 am
‘There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry’
Yes, and they were all created by people who realised that they would get nowhere without divine intervention in , for example, the design of air conditioners.
And now such ideas are to be expelled!
Fight back, people. Fight back against the hypocrites who decry ideas of divine intervention yet still use the internet which was inspired by religious beliefs.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 am
This seems similar to the “debate” over global climate change - politically motivated conservatives have noticed that when it comes to their religio-political issues, scientists are both uninterested and write their ideas off as disproven. Who needs science when we can use public opinion to confuse the masses? Intelligent design is ignored, not because of supression, but because it adds nothing to current biological theory in explaining reality, and interjects quite a few unrelated and difficult-to-prove hypotheses. The preview comments that every generation has a rebel - Ben Stein doesn’t appear to have met that rebel yet.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 am
“# Nathan Daniels Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
…Why don’t you read a biology book instead of pandering to the right-wing nutjobs?”
Because he is a right wing nut job, sad to say.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 am
I agree with disagreeing scientists and scholars that this really is a fulcrum issue for society. Where is the evidence pointing? How do we know what we know, to what level of certainty–and what role can science play?
Even if Ben Stein has adopted opinions along the way, I admit–I’m curious to see this film
–IF it takes a gander at some real physical evidence, and IF the final cut accurately shows a representative sampling of competing perspectives.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 am
I started reading all the posts with much interest and I can see alot of mentally blind people around bagging somthing they haven’t yet seen..(but that’s the same with alot of things even science)..but the title alone causes their blood to boil. Some of these people haven’t examined both sides of the debate and that is obvious by their crude uneducated comments spouting forth Dawkins and others like a well trained parrot. Shouldn’t science keep an open mind to all things (dare I say even God). It seems funny to me that even when science stumbles on its own laws and boundaries as long as the answer agrees with darwinisum it’s accepted. If you don’t agree with me please answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional THEORY. I’ll save you some time it can’t. But the FACT that it is a LAW of science doen’t stop evolutionists ignoring it. Face it evolution is as much a religion as the Christian, Muslim or any other religion.
Ben, I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film…I do hope it’s comming to Australia….I’d love the debate it will obviously cause judging from this blog.
As to all you blogsters….peace, good will and love to you all.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:14 am
This is inspired by empty-headed amoral power grabs and propaganda moves by people who don’t much care for other people. If I didn’t worry about my nephew’s future and the future of his friends I suppose I could join you in this horrible charade.
Ben Stein is a creep.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 am
It is amazing how vile and nasty those on the anti-ID side are. To be honest, I don’t have a position yet, but I do know that I don’t want to sit down and have a cup of joe with those nasty guys.
Maybe I’ll just wait for the movie, watch it and decide if IT is done well or poorly. Either way, I promise I won’t jump off one side or the other of the topic purely based upon a flick!
And hey, Ben, you hang in there…always good to see someone take on a tough topic with a bit of humor.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 am
What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” which is supposedly being suppressed by a Dogmatic Scientific Orthodoxy (TM)? ID supporters, as a group, are quick to complain “No, *that* ISN’T what ID says”… but somehow, for all the “not This, not That, not The Other” verbiage they generate, ID supporters never quite get around to explaining what the heck ID *is*.
So, again: What, *exactly*, IS this “theory of Intelligent Design” thingamajobbie? From what I’ve been able to glean from the IDist literature, ID “theory” can be summed up in seven words: “Somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”. And *that* is what ID supporters claim is being unjustly suppressed? Yeah, right.
Now, I’m sure that ID supporters will complain that my 7-word summary is inaccurate, that it distorts ID, yada yada yada. Well, maybe so… but if my summary *is*, in fact, inaccurate, how about explaining where, *exactly*, it goes wrong?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somehow” — what tool(s) and/or technique(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) use to do whatever It/They did?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somewhere” — in which location(s) did the Intelligent Designer(s) *do* whatever it was It/They *did*?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “somebody intelligent”, other than the bare assertion that It/They *is/are* intelligent — is there only one Intelligent Designer, or is there more than one?
What (if anything) does ID ‘theory’ have to say about the “something” that the Intelligent Designer(s) “did” — what action(s) did It/They perform, for what purpose(s), using what resource(s)?
Hopefully, nobody out there will disagree that anything as vacuous as “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is *not* a scientific theory; the only point of disagreement should be whether or not “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something” is an accurate summary of Intelligent Design. So how about it, ID supporters? What *does* ID actually say? How *does* ID ‘theory’ differ from “somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something”?
Bueller? Anyone?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:14 am
I’m sorry but there is no grand conspiracy to eliminate alternatives to the theory of evolution. Academics around the world are not foolish enough to conspire to repress new ideas in science.
The fact is, IF someone were able to provide any solid evidence for an alternative theory to evolution they would be as celebrated in the scientific world as Einstein. The beauty of scientific inquiry is that you CAN become wildly famous by DISPROVING an accepted theory. There is no dogma in science.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Well, you never know, maybe the movie comes to the sensible conclusion that ID is a vacuous mask for Biblical Creationism, and that is has absolutely no foundation in science.
*hollow laughing sound*
Seriously, about the only Creationist canard I haven’t seen so far on this thread is “but if we evolved from monkeys where are there still monkeys?!!!”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Boy, judging from some of the negative comments from folk who feel so threatened by and antagonistic to the ID view (in America, the home of the free; that is, if you think like us:-), I’d say you folks just ate up Michael Moore’s “Sicko” and “Farenheit 911″, typically mindless liberal gospel that it is. I’m comforted by the fact that “Farenheit 911″ is now in the $6 DVD bin where it belonged from the day of it’s release. Oh, the myth of neutrality…
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 am
Considering the fact that Galileo was executed for his teaching of the “heretical” idea that the universe isn’t geo-centric, I’d say he’s probably not the best of people to put forward as a supporter of your cause. Also, Einstein believed in a pan-theistic deity, that is a deity who controls things but does not interceed on anyone’s behalf. He was, of course, duly derided for believing such blasphames
That said I want to make something else clear, ID is not science. In order to be a scientific theory it must first be a hypothesis, the first requirement of which is falsifiability. ID does not have this, and is therefore not science, it is philosophy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 am
Wow… No need for the film, Ben. All these nasty comments are proving your point. I guess you’ve been “expelled” from the internet realm. Yikes…
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 am
So why did this film invite interviews from prominant scientist under false pretenses?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
Were you aware of this dishonesty Ben?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 am
Ben Stein:
I’m not a US citizen, but it seems easy to note that the US constitution and the relevant 1st amendment doesn’t base itself on rights given by any particular gods or even gods in general.
The constitution is founded by the people for the people:
And freedom of individuals is founded on separation between state and religion:
Well, aren’t you ignorant of the history and inner workings of science! Any description which isn’t based on a mechanism isn’t predictive and cannot be trusted. This is why “design”, “creators”, et cetera has never become a part of science - they were put aside when the project started to take off because they were shown to be fallacious at best and not working at worst.
As comment #1 notes, while science can give all the answers we demand of it, socio-political creationism such as ID isn’t interested in that. It is based on the false premise that any hypothesized successful criticism of a particular science would mean creationism is automatically the remaining alternative. Even worse, the proposed alternative isn’t a working choice.
A Media Corporation promoted Premise based on the fallacy of false choice must be EXPELLED as there is No Intelligence Allowed in it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:19 am
“Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
I seem to remember a Michael Behe working at Lehigh University. Or does he not think about ID anymore?
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 am
I don’t have time to read all of the posts above but I have noticed that many posters are opposed to the thesis of this movie.
I really just want to ask what the opposers think science is and what it is they think scientists are trying to do.
Do they think that their family physician is a scientist? What about police detectives?
If you don’t think either of these two groups should be classified as scientists, why do you think that? And what other label would you suggest that would fit them better?
I ask because I know that virtually no one thinks that doctors are scientists. This is why medical undergraduates usually have to sit through a lecture titled something like, “Medicine: Is it a science or an art?”.
And yet what doctors do in order to diagnose an illness (so that they can prescribe the correct treatment) is precisely the same sort of process that (macro)evolutionary biologist types go through when they’re trying to explain how we got to here from nothing at all. Personally I don’t think what the macroevolutionary people are doing is science. But then I think of science as the effort to describe, in generalisable terms, how repeatable natural events occur.
I don’t think that the word “science” properly describes the process by which a philosophically pre-determined idea (i.e., matter is all there is) is used to try to convince everyone alive that, indeed, matter is all there is. That sounds more like “propaganda” to me. See Lysenkoism.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
Cubist: I pretty much agree, but you forget the most important part: How do you know? Even the ID folks seem to agree that “the bible said so” isn’t really a scientific explanation, so the real question is: What methodology did you use to come up with this theory, and what experiments / observations / scientific procedures can I use to come to the same conclusion. I don’t know about you, but I’m perfectly willing to be shown that I’m wrong on this; I just need to see for myself. That’s science, isn’t it?
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:56 am
[…] around the site already points to the overall lack of research and downright stupidity employed by our “hero” Stein in trying to scare conservatives into believing him. From the site’s blog; Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no […]
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 am
It’s a shame that someone who used to stand for knowledge is now the champion of ignorance.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:07 am
All the vitriole being poured out against this movie makes me think of Muslims who riot and cause injury to people and property when someone suggests that Islam is involved in violence. If they are representaive of the movers and shakers in academia, they are proving the point. Let’s watch the movie.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 am
I am really looking forward to this movie. After believing the brainwashing on origins I received in school for decades, I finally found out there is no proof to what I was taught, just suppositions and conjecture.
Yes, true science is being supressed. Anything that does not prove the preconceived “truth” is rejected.
You go, Ben Stein!
Sincerely,
X
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:15 am
Ben,
I don’t know much about ID theory, and what evidence is use to prove it, but I do believe God created us. I believe in God, and I use the bible as my proof. The bible is a history book. It’s history, and many of the people in the bible have been provin to exsist. The writings, from where the Bible comes from, have been around for hundreds for years. Alot longer than any of our history books for our country, but people believe in George Washington, but can’t believe in Jesus. It sounds to me like they don’t want to believe, because it would make them accountable for their actions. I hope your movie does well. Your blog along is proof that there are people out there trying to shut us up. They can’t stand for someone to have a different opinion or theory. Keep Believing.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:30 am
“Some of these people haven’t examined both sides of the debate”
Actually, we have. Every time an ID/Creationist yells “persecution” the pro-reality community goes to work digging up the facts. Long experience has taught us to never accept any such statement on face value, as ID/Creationists have a long history of misrepresentation. The stories of the “expelled” have been discussed in much detail elsewhere, a qwuick Google will bring the facts to light.
Oh, such brave rebels the film makers are, obtaining their interviews under false flags so as to avoid any of that “confrontation” that they advertize. This would be a good time to remind them that “What the Bleep…” is involved in lawsuits over their rather “creative” editing of their interview subjects.
Read Disco’s Wedge document, in which the tactics and goals are laid out. Read about how they want “To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life”….”To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”…”Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory”
That isn’t a scientific program, that’s theocracy.
And Ben Stein thinks that’s a good thing. Do you?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
This is good… Ben Stein who isn’t a scientist who isn’t a relgion expert of any sort is the judge and jury for the intelligent design. Great.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:43 am
Second Law? Seriously, Stuart? You don’t understand the concept of “closed system” do you?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. So, the Second Law doesn’t apply. If EVERYTHING had to be constrained by the Second Law, including open systems, you’d never be able to bake a cake. Can’t go around decreasing entropy, even on a local basis.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 am
Looks funny,
but what I’ve never been able to find is the actual research the ID proponents are conducting (perhaps I don’t have access to those journals or I am using the incorrect search terms).
For example, there is a lot of debate going on in cosmology right now, because the universe appears to be accelerating, we are finding old stars when we look out 13billion light-years into space, and some other findings that the Big Bang model has trouble explaining. So, because of these findings, there is significant debate in the cosmology community of late, even a “Crisis in Cosmology” conference or two.
However, there seems to be no similar research in ID; no one is finding problems with evolution, no one is even looking, literally. Behe’s extended arguments from incredulity depend upon on him not reading the many research articles that contradict his every point, and count on his audience not reading them either. Indeed “The Wedge Document” and B. Forrest’s research make it clear that ID is primarily a social, rather than a scientific, movement concerned with creating a constitutional alternative to “creation science”.
If there is no research and no findings that call into question evolutionary biology and uniquely support ID, it is not science. It is a philosophy, and given the religiousity of America, it is a philosophy we have all heard before, often indoctrinated into in the name of a “the one true faith®”. How is that appropriate for public school science classes?
I’m sorry for all the “persecution” these people are facing, but academic failure is the price of intellectual dishonesty. Or do you propose we should set up a sort of “affirmative action” to give equal time to geologists who will skew the facts to support Noah’s flood, or biologists who spend all their time, and their university’s money, trying to jam the square peg of Genesis into the round hole of the actual facts?
Remember, we are competing in a global marketplace now. You could be terribly successful, sway public opinion, win the culture wars here, remove any mention of evolution from universities and public schools, and teach pure “creation science” to children from kindergarden, and none of that would make evolution less true, nor would it stop other countries from using evolutionary biology to do new research and develop new technologies to their competitive advantage.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
These seven words,I cannot argue with you,seem about what the IDers are saying.But you are missing the main point of the intellegent design proponents. The main point being,if Neo Darwinists cannot explain pathways that would have led to the evolution of such things as DNA,the complex molecullar machines in cells,and things that seem to be irrreducibly complex( such as the bacterium flagellum/motor), then maybe there is no evolutionary answer for these things.
Any one familiar with the scientific literature would know that famouse scientists expressed doubts about evolution. The theory of Panspermia ( life was seeded by aliens ) was believed by some, including Francis Crick, a nobel prize winning scientist who worked with DNA.They believed Panspermia because because thought life could not have originated on Earth.
Now what IDers are saying is that Design,information,and specified complexity could not have arrisen by natural laws and chance.They are saying an intellegenct designer is the obvious answer.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Stuart from Australia. G’Day.
Classic creationist SLoT argument. Earth isn’t a closed system, it’s powered by the sun. Acorns grow into trees, so emperically your arguments are wrong.
Tell us about the ‘theory’ of ID, its experiments, its predictions.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Errrm, ID doesn’t have anything to do with religion or God. It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God. See it doesn’t have anything to do with it.
And it’s all science so far!!! the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn’t, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn’t. You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.
And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn’t. Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design. Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don’t have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions. Science=Democracy! All Science So Far!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
PZ Myers blogged about appearing in the movie as a result of being duped into the role by the movie’s producers. You can read about that in his blog which is easily found online.
I wonder why an intelligent person such as Ben Stein is associating himself with such an immoral and dishonest group of people. I’m afraid he’s been duped as well. He makes this seem like an issue of freedom which it is as much as fighting to teach alchemy in chemistry classes, astrology in astronomy classes, or the stork theory in reproductive biology classes are issues of freedom. The U.S. (my homeland) is second to last on the list of acceptance of evolution among 34 industrialized countries (with only Turkey falling behind) and it’s because of rampant religious fundamentalism. The ID movement takes advantage of the lack of science understanding this fundamentalism has caused. I can’t see it as anything but harmful to our country and the world.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 am
So, lemme get this straight: Your producers lied to interviewees about the movie which you were making, and you people are supposed to be the MORAL ones.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
Wow! I applaud your courage to take on such a contentious topic! Most of these people already know they are right and so they ridicule you before even seeing the film. I think you are going to lose a lot of fans and make a lot of enemies, but judging from the amount of ridicule and negative comments on this site already, I think there are an awful lot of people who need to see this film. Unfortunately, I bet many of these people will not watch the film for themselves. It is easier to just parrot the critics who do see it and continue to attack Intelligent Design. I do believe there are some who seriously believe that evolution is right. They are ignorant of what is happening and when they see this movie, I’m betting it will cause them to question things. It is worth it to make this film for all these who have been unkowingly brainwashed and duped into placing their faith in chance and natural processes, and blindly trusting Big Science. I’m looking forward to the film. Hopefully it will be shown in Japan so I can see it.
tj
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Here’s the theory of ID in a nutshell.
God did it.
Not very scientific is it.
The god of the gaps is an old old idea.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Suricou Raven wrote, “…[R]efusing to allow ID to be taught as serious science is no different to excluding astrology, tarot-reading or feng-shui.”
Intelligent Design is completely different from astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui:
1) Astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui do *not* claim to be
scientific models. ID does.
2) Astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui *do* make claims and
predictions that can be tested and
potentially falsified…like any
scientific hypothesis. ID does *not* make any claims or predictions
that can be tested or potentially falisfied.
In this latter respect, astrology, tarot-reading and feng shui are more sensible scientific models than ID.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 am
Super job, Ben! Someone above referred to Kenneth Miller of Brown. If someone would like to read my interactions with Kenneth Miller, go to my website and send me an email. I can send the article about it as a “pdf” attachment. Dr. Miller needs to be able to see “new information” evolve, but his efforts to support this notion were feeble. I also discuss with him his apparent theological confusion. www.CRMinistriesPhilly.com.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
Ben Stein apparently wrote, “Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
How do you explain, then, that about 40% of working scientists believe in God? Are they all forbidden to think about their intelligent creator? See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v386/n6624/abs/386435a0.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:18 am
Yeah, you know what else is being suppressed in science classrooms around the country (and even the world!)? Phrenology, phlogiston, geocentrism, alchemy, homunculus theory of conception, the four humors, rotating aether spheres, and countless other scientific theories that Big Science doesn’t want you to know about!
I hope, now that the Truth has been revealed to you, that you fight for the freedom of these ideas to be expressed, discussed, and taught as fact in schools too. Because, as you say, FREEDOM is what makes this country great! And if we don’t have the FREEDOM to teach anything we want as valid science, our country will surely be destroyed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 am
Wow ben, what a sell out. Look forward to ignoring your future endeavors.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Indeed, the Bible is the only truth that science needs. Jesus spent much of his life on Earth burying and hiding fafossils so that devil worshipers would have something to keep them busy.
Just look at Ben Stein’s turkey gullet and that is sure evidence of a Designer. A turkey gullet like Ben Stein’s could not have formed by chance. I hope the movie is not as boring as all of Stein’s other work.
To all the Christians who think evolution is not a fact: You are fools.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Rob K”:
Many people posting act like your claim that college students, professors and scientists can’t express their views is bogus. Maybe they should talk to Guillermo Gonzales who was denied tenure despite being vastly over qualified in comparison to what is the minimum expectations to receive tenure.
For a unique definition of “vastly overqualified” which actually means “doesn’t do original research and couldn’t attract a grant if his life depended on it”. In contrast to the other U of Iowa physicists, who attract, on average $1.3 million each in grants, Gonzalez didn’t attract a single major grant in all his time in Iowa, and only attracted a little over $22,000 overall. This is not purely an abstract consideration. In research universities, the professor is the primary investigator (PI) and is supported by a phalanx of grad students, postdocs, etc. whom she has to pay out of her grant money. No grant money, no research assistants, means no research, which means nobody will give you precious telescope time, etc. It all ends in not being able to be the productive researcher that a university likes to see.
Far from being overqualified, he was underqualified.
Truth be told most of the above hostile posters probably secretly applaud the denial of tenure but wouldn’t admit it publicly because they know in their heart that this kind of censorship of ideas is WRONG.
I don’t secretly applaud the denial of tenure in this case, I openly do so. Academia has enough unproductive hacks with tenure, so we shouldn’t be pushing people with a spotty record of attracting grants into new sinecures. This is not a censorship of ideas; if anything Gonzalez is now more free to publish his ID speculations without having to fake his way through the appearance of teaching or doing real research.
“Steve Martin”:
I’ve researched this issue from several angles and it is clear that we are not even close to answering the big questions with respect to the history of life on Earth. How did it start? Scientists are clueless.
Contrast with “…Progress made in the last few years has added to this early work and brings us closer to a satisfactory solution. In this article key results, old and new, and some ideas as to how further progress is likely to be made are discussed. There are reasons for optimism. Substantial progress has been made on the synthesis of purines and ribose, phosphorylation and polyphosphorylation. …”
Zubay G., Mui T. (2001) “Prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides.” Orig Life Evol Biosph Feb-Apr;31(1-2):87-102
And that’s from six years ago. Progress since then has only increased. Perhaps the “next angle” you research this from should be reading what actual scientists in the field have to say.
How did it develop? We have fragments of pre-historic finds that we try to weave a theory through.
And biogeography, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genomics, etc. Why is it when creationists want to talk about evolution, all they can seem to discuss are the fossils? Perhaps it’s my bias coming from a background in cell biology and biophysics, but I don’t think there’s evidence for evolution that’s better than the genomic evidence. This is very well explained for the layman in Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata’s Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent.
Evolution? Then why did all the distinct body plans found on earth appear basically at the same time (The so-called ‘Cambrian explosion’ duringthe Cambrian time period)?
They didn’t. If creationists have to discuss fossils, I have a word for you to learn and love: vendobionta. These are the fossilized creatures from the Vendian, the era prior to the Cambrian. At one time they were thought to have been an evolutionary innovation that died out entirely, but subsequent research both into the Vendian and the Lower Cambrian has shown that there are clear patterns of descent from the Vendian through the Cambrian.
Secondly, not all phyla appeared in the Cambrian or even the Vendian. This is particularly true outside the animal kingdom, but even within it. Bryozoans don’t appear until the Ordovician, ctenophores until the Devonian, nematodes, nemertines, and echiurans until the Carboniferous.
The entire plant kingdom didn’t exist, as far as we can tell from the fossil record, before the Silurian, so all its phyla emerged in the Silurian or later. Creationists need to reconcile this with their arguments about the Cambrian in order to remain intellectually consistent. After all, if the Cambrian “explosion” is to be taken as an instantiation of the divine creation of animals, what are we to make of the fact that no plants appear at all until two geological epochs later?
One thing that is clear from our current interpretation of the data is that life did NOT slowly develop from a cell into a fish, into a lizard, into a bid over many millions of years.
Congratulations. Perhaps you’re on you’re way to understand that evolution does not take place in the singular: it deals with populations over generations.
How do systems with 50+ distinct parts and functions slowly develop, when if one piece/function is missing it serves no purpose?
Or perhaps not.
The problem with the argument you’ve outlined above, beyond its plain inaccuracy, is that it assumes that evolution is a predestined stepwise ascension to the final product, therefore by removing “parts” you can retrace the path of evolution. It’s using teleological thinking to argue against conventional biology in order to make a case for teleological thinking. This self-contradiction at the core of your argument torpedoes it below the waterline before we’ve even gotten started discussing specifics.
If you want specifics, however, they’ve been discussed for decades. See, for example, Thomas H. Frazzetta’s book Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations.
For a more (relatively) recent case of the evolution of such a system, try:
Copley, SD. (2000) “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25:261-265.
Intellegent Design? Yes there is seemingly evidence of design, but, besides it’s philisophical implications, so what? What are Scientists going to do differently if they accept this as true?
They had better be doing something different, otherwise the ID approach must be content-free. That’s the thing about science. It’s not just enough to say “I have another way of looking at this”. Instead your theory must either make divergent predictions from the prevailing theory which are then confirmed or it must encompass a broader set of phenomena than the prevailing theory.
What strikes me is that you have at least heard of evo-devo, which is very much a current discipline (only having really gotten off the ground in the past twenty-five years) and yet you don’t know about sources of information which are ancient by the standards of the sciences and yet still refute your claims. Granted, this is not completely your fault, because ID proponents do their best to ignore the data and muddy the waters, but don’t you think you owe it to yourself to actually learn about what scientists are saying about your questions before asking them? It’s not like we’re a particularly secretive bunch.
“Stuart (Australia)”:
It seems funny to me that even when science stumbles on its own laws and boundaries as long as the answer agrees with darwinisum it’s accepted. If you don’t agree with me please answer how science explains the second law of thermodynamics in relation to evolutional THEORY. I’ll save you some time it can’t.
Here’s a particularly egregious example of what I’m talking about. There’s a whole branch of thermodynamics called non-equilibrium thermodynamics which has very definite applications in the field of biology (see, for example, Statistical Thermodynamics of Nonequilibrium Processes by Joel Keizer, a pioneer in computational cell biology).
However, in brief, organisms derive their energy from the surrounding environment in a variety of ways. Hydrothermal vents on the sea floor are subject to entropy, as is the sun, which gives off lots of entropy far and wide. A small portion of this energy is turned into biologically useful energy (e.g. the way chloroplasts use sunlight with carbon dioxide and water to synthesize sugars). This provides energy for the organisms which become the base of the food web. The other creatures in the food web eat the former and each other and gain energy. These creatures also give off entropy (this is why you radiate body heat). In fact, there is no physiological process known which is 100% efficient. Like the little old lady anecdote in A Brief History of Time, it’s entropy all the way down.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
Hey Ben,
Looks like you are on to something!
Anytime someone is called Bozo the Clown, an idiot, a catspaw for the religious right, a liar, a freaking moron, a fraud, a right wing nutjob, an empty headed creep, and a pathetic fake by so-called “sane, intelligent scientifically minded seekers of truth”, it draws my attention.
Something is awry, when someone’s professed belief elicits that kind of hatred and vitriol from those who do not hold that belief. That kind of name calling is usually reserved for those who are frightened, covering something up, or trying to defend their own turf.
For instance, I don’t believe in a flat earth, and so I don’t frequent flat earth web sites, nor do I read flat-earther books or articles. The belief in a flat earth in my mind, is beyond the pale, it is a non story, and because it is so preposterous to me, I do not, I cannot, get excited about the fact that some people do believe in a flat earth. Because of that, flat-earther’s do not upset me, nor do they scare me with their belief’s. I don’t call them names, and I don’t froth at the mouth over their beliefs. I simply ignore them, because what they believe is demonstrably, scientifically falsifiable, and so I leave that fight behind for people who have much more time on their hands than I do. I have never lost a minutes sleep over it.
The point is, if ID is so “out there”, so preposterous, and so easily proven false, and it is truly a belief that is only held by the “Bozo’s” and “Moron’s” of this world, why all the fuss?
Could it be that the Bozo’s and Moron’s are on to something?
I cannot wait to see the movie!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
I don’t think Ben Stein will be answering any of these questions. He’ll hope we all go see the film and he’ll take his cut.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
My item #144 above does not seem to work when you click on my website. Don’t click on it, therefore, but just type it in separately. It should work for you then.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
“David Morning”:
Considering the fact that Galileo was executed for his teaching of the “heretical” idea that the universe isn’t geo-centric, I’d say he’s probably not the best of people to put forward as a supporter of your cause.
If we’re going to demand standards of accuracy of the IDists, I think it’s only fair to point out that Galileo wasn’t executed. He was forced to publicly recant, wear the yellow “cross of infamy” (which implied social ostracization or imprisonment) and be subjected to house arrest for the rest of his life. It’s not quite as extreme as execution, but it’s hardly cheering for Ben Stein, the presumptive author this ignorant screed.
On the other hand, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy for, among other things, speculating that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. Maybe when Ben Stein sees that happening in academe, then he’ll have a case.
“Andy Social”:
Second Law? Seriously, Stuart? You don’t understand the concept of “closed system” do you?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. So, the Second Law doesn’t apply. If EVERYTHING had to be constrained by the Second Law, including open systems, you’d never be able to bake a cake. Can’t go around decreasing entropy, even on a local basis.
I can see what you’re saying, but it’s a mistake to say that the second law just applies to closed/isolated systems only. It applies to all systems, but the isolated systems are the ones that yield easy freshman physics equations. In the case of open systems, it still applies, but in a far more complex way which is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky chemical oscillator is one of the most celebrated cases in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
However, your general point is accurate. In open systems, local decreases in entropy can drive the formation of local “order” at the expense of greater entropy dispersed elsewhere. Although “order” is a tricky qualitative term in thermodynamics too, which is why I put it in scare quotes. For example, a layer of oil on a layer of water is more orderly than when it’s stirred up together, but the former is more entropically favorable.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
This film is a horrendous attempt to promote ID masquerading as a fight for freedom. It is a cheap shot at exploiting America’s 0bsession with the term freedom (even tho few of us actually stop to consider what this term actually means).
I think kellbelles comment above makes a very strong point… you don’t hear him fighting for their cause do you. How pathetic. Come on Ben, grow up!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
Do you actually think this documentary ISN’T going to be utterly ripped apart by anyone who can think for themselves?
Nice career move….
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Cubist asked what the actual theory of intelligent design is. I’ve read Dembski, Behe, Meyers, and their colleagues, and I can say with knowledgeable confidence that the theory of intelligent says no more nor less than this:
“Sometime or other, something (or some things) designed something or other, and then somehow or other manufactured it in matter and energy, all the while leaving no independent evidence of the design process, the manufacturing process, or the presence (or even the existence) of the designing and manufacturing entities,”
Now test that, you uppity scientists!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hey dude, just heard that the production ‘company’ for this crock of propanda misrepresented themselves, the name of the production company and the nature of the film to PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins and others. Since when has lying been a good xian behaviour? By their fruits shall you know them is I think what the piece of ancient meanderings you lot pander to says.
So, you people are going to hell, if it exists. Now there is a nice warm thought to think.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
What “confrontation”? You people lied through your teeth to get a few interviews with prominent scientists under completely false pretences.
This is the letter they sent to PZ Myers for example:
[quote] Hello Mr. Myers,
My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.”
At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.
We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Sincerely,
Mark Mathis
Rampant Films
4414 Woodman Ave. #203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
www.rampantfilms.com[/quote]
What a bunch of deceitful cowards. Are your arguments really so weak that you have to fake a “confrontation” with scientists - this is just lame propaganda - Stalin and Goebbels would be proud of you.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Stein, your diatribe here is embarrassing. You, a presumebly thoughtful human being, is suggesting that in not acknowledging every last creation myth and every last deity ever conjured in the unimaginative yarns spun by our uneducated ancestors we are somehow taking away people’s freedom. I’m assuming then that if you had your way we’d continue to teach alchemy, divination, rune-casting, astrology and all the other infantile forms of bullshit that our gullible predessesors employed to “understand” the universe. People like you should be stripped of your credentials.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Wow, did you ever hit a nerve with this one! I am astonished at how many Darwinian Fundamentalists signed on to repeat the same tired drivel that has been repeatedly refuted. They just seem to stick their fingers in their ears after a point and proclaim the discussion is over, rather than actually acknowledge the rebuttals and attempt to answer them. I’m not sure who you have helping you on this, but I do hope that you will make sure your facts are exactly right, because Darwinists will pick on any error, no matter how immaterial, while littering the thought-scape with their own. I’m sure many qualified scientists would be willing to help, since some anti-darwinian web sites go so far as to list arguments in favor of their position they think should not be used and why.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Ben,
If you want to live in a theocracy so badly, please move to Iran.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Ben,
I’m sure you’re not going to read this so I don’t know why I’m bothering. And I don’t know you personally so I’m sure my opinion of you will not affect you very much. However, I just wanted you to know that I’ve lost all respect for you. I’m certainly not going to resort to calling you names, as others have done, but I would like to repeat this as I think it is important…I’ve lost all respect for you.
You are a brilliant guy, especially when it comes to economics and investing. I mean that. I’m looking past Ferris Bueller and Win Ben Stein’s Money. I’ve learned a great deal from those articles you have written regarding management of personal finances. Now what am I supposed to think? This was coming from a guy who clearly doesn’t understand the scientific method.
You have become the dumbest smart person I know.
Dave Mc
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The atheist doth protest too much, methinks.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
So Bush must be doing a FABULOUS job because so many people call him a disaster?
That’s an interesting way at looking at the world.
Backwards. But interesting.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Just at a glance it seems anti-ID vastly outnumbers Creationists et al (ya know-those of us dumb enough to actually believe in God?) and yet we are still here! Praise God!
With the amount of resources devoted to undermining the authority of the Bible isn’t it peculiar that it still remains? I guess there must be a force more powerful than money or science or humans to provide this outcome. I think something like that is called “supernatural”. Isn’t it?
No matter how “advanced” our (homo-sapien) science progresses, there will still be questions unanswered. The last scientist on Earth (and one day there will be a last) will still have unanswered/unproven theories. Dare I say that the last question on their HEART will most likely be “why?”. This alone necessitates and points to a force outside of our realm of understanding. Therefor there will ALLWAYS be, by definition, supernatural.
Either camp DEMANDS faith. Go Ben!
Chris
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
If anyone in Vegas has a line on a Stein vs. Pagan Left match, my money (all of it) will be on Stein.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Teno Groppi said:
“The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.”
Just a few problems with that statement: It’s flat-out wrong. Evolution has been under the microscope for decades, and it’s passed every honest test thrown at it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You may also want to check out the transcripts and the judges decision from the Dover Trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
Bottom line, both the claims of evolution and ID were examined, and ID’s claims fell apart under cross-examination, while the evolutionary claims have stood.
Not very honest to claim otherwise, and not very smart to do so when all the evidence is public record! For another example of the dishonesty invovled in this film, check out how they got PZ Myers to interview them!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hey Ben, do you know why people who appear in your movie Expelled thought they were being interviewed for a movie called Crossroads?
That seems a little shady.. and possibly some sort of breach of contract. I wonder what sort of editing tricks will be employed in order to fit them into the theme of your movie. But don’t worry, the internet has a long memory, and we won’t let anyone forget what sorts of underhanded trickery you had to pull to get credible scientists to appear in your work.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Stuart:
There is no need - you grow up from a fetus to an adult without problems with thermodynamical laws.
If you are curious how systems like snow flakes, crystals, computers or life makes “order” out of disorder, they do so by dumping their entropy elsewhere. The whole Earth radiates and dumps it further, as long as the sun heats it.
AndySocial:
Your argument is essentially correct, but a problem is that a common formulation of 2LOT (seen for example in Wikipedia) is too restrictive. 2LOT applies in all systems, but it is easiest to express for closed systems. Nullifidian in comment #154 explains further.
[I can perhaps add that gravitation and cosmology adds further complications. Since gravitational systems attracts (spontaneously “order”) and energy in general relativity is only locally uniquely defined, you can have trouble to apply 2LOT simply or at all for gravitational systems and cosmological scales.
Then again, AFAIK de Sitter universes can be shown to yield nicely to treatment. In any case, science is never as simple as religious dogmatists of the ID kind is lead to believe.]
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Wow, the Darwinistas are already out in full force!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
hokeygrandma:
It doesn’t look like you know what science is, but this happens to be exactly correct - science does nothing of that.
Or can you tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”?
Kanugahili:
ID is a socio-political movement, and it is revamped creationism - the court in Dover vs ABE was forced to establish that because of its proponents threatened to take its religious ideas into science education. You can easily find the court transcripts on the web.
Note especially how the clumsy rewriting of ID’s seminal text Of Pandas and People made it possible to prove this to the courts satisfaction.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Ah yes, I forgot to talk about some of the likely examples of persecution that will likely be in the movie.
For the real story about why Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure, you may want to check out this:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/tenure_and_the_id_persecution.php
Sadly, maybe it takes some cartoons to get the message across?
http://www.nmsr.org/davetoon.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/cese0507.jpg
http://www.nmsr.org/idtoon-1.GIF
and more.
The singular difference between people like Newton, Galileo and the ID people: Those guys were shot down by the christian church and their work was supressed. The ID people? The scientific community is waiting and waiting for them to come up with any actual evidence for their theories. So far, they’ve come up with none. No predictions, no research projects, no experiments, nada.
As the Dover trial showed, the few claims that they have made are all based on a selectively-screened out version of the existing data so as to make evolutio look weaker than it really is (ex. check out the judge’s decion and the court transcript itself about the blood-clotting cascade problem!)
Well, maybe another difference between Newton and the ID people is that the ID people are quite childish in their defeat. Dembski made a flash animation of Judge Jones complete with farting noises!
http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Rob, RBH, Rich, Steve_C, Ryan and others,
I’m wondering if you can state an actual theory of evolution, and give an example of an repeatable observation which supports it to the exclusion of other explanations which include a designer or creator. I doubt this is possible, since you have only the present in which to make observations.
When you can do this, though, you can say that ID people have “no theory” and feel superior for having one.
The truth is that the evidence and facts (observations made in the present) are the same for everyone.
Interpretations and inferences are what are up for discussion in science, once the observations have been replicated, and certain interpretations of this same evidence are being censored.
Ben, I hope you are able to carry through on this film! I look forward to seeing it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The only way to identify truth (a supposed goal of science) is through freedom. Areas of thought where debate must be squelched are always, without fail, areas where certain types or groups of individuals can’t or won’t allow freedom lest the “debate” be over… which means, simply, that the debate never really existed in the first place.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
…and the typical rhetoric continues to spill forth. I still get the impression very few bloggers are really reading much up on this site or the articles it links to. I don’t hear much in the way of support for the scientists who want to study new evidence but are being stifled by the media and Big Science. I just hear scared little minds afraid someone might find something that will rock their evolutionary worlds. Who cares what the scientist thought the movie would be called when they were interviewed? You mean to tell me they would say something different if they were being interviewed for a movie called BLACK instead of WHITE? These guys are authors on their subjects and write volumes of stuff on web sites and blogs every day… If there’s anything they love to do is wag their tongues to anyone who will listen. “Underhanded trickery”…Give me a break! They should be thanking Ben for the thousands of their books their interviews in this movie will sell for them.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
RBH, I assume by “Meyers” you mean Stephen C. Meyer. The mispelling “Meyers” could easily be thought to refer to PZ Myers, who (as you’re probably already aware) is as fierce a critic of ID as there is. (No, I’m not related; it’s just a very common name).
Your formulation of the ID “hypothesis” is spot-on.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
# DaveB Says:
>>The point is, if ID is so “out there”, so preposterous, and so easily proven false, and it is truly a belief that is only held by the “Bozo’s” and “Moron’s” of this world, why all the fuss?
Could it be that the Bozo’s and Moron’s are on to something?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Steve M:
Since Nullifidian answered you at length I will only add this:
Abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary biology, which concerns evolution of already existing populations. If we find a plausible and coherent explanation it would make a nice annex. But biologists already know mechanisms predicting the observations we make on populations.
Biology is in fact the science that has the best precision of all of them, on exactly the question you ask. Very few phylogenetic trees of the astronomically possible trees fits evolutionary patterns (nested hierarchies) that comes from observing the phenomena of common descent.
The standard phylogenetic tree, from single cell life to man, is decided to better than 38 decimals. (As an uncertainty.) And combining 75 studies from different researchers one has a degree of combined statistical non-confidence of p <<-300.
I would recommend people to study more of modern evolutionary theory too, especially such parts that venture into new areas as evo-devo, showing the soundness of the basic theory.
It is a common mistake to confuse the main strengths of science, that it is improvable and also continuously improving, from the weakness of dogmatism and its reliance on old and in time falsified beliefs of ‘perfect truths’.
Science is a human endeavor, it admits it strengths and imperfections straight up. Religious dogma, not so much.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Why was the latest blog-post by Deacon-blue deleted? Was it because of the comments?
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Rev Hipple.
Wow, thats some great stuff. More whinning about being “persecuted”. Funny innit? That all science asks and has ever asked is for IDers and religionists to offer up firm scientific proof of a creator. You haven’t done it so far, and I don’t think you ever will. Don’t blame the forces of light. ID is crackpot work and doesn’t even deserve the name “science”.
Say, about those wonderful figures of science past who would be “kicked out…” I wonder, are you forgetting about the $3 Billion that Dubbya has given his “faith based initiatives”? Me thinks ye doth protest too much. Finally, since Ben Stein implies that just for think about religion gets professors the boot I have to wonder where the thought reading machine comes from. 1984? Big Brother? If they can read thoughts, we’re all in deep shite!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Ask yourself this question:
Have you ever had a sense to do something for somebody else and then not done it? Think about it. Have you ever seen a child or anybody cry and felt to help? Have you ever thought you ought to open a door for someone, or allow someone to merge into traffic, or smile at someone, or, or, or…think about it.
Now. Analyze the question. Test the hypothesis. Do a survey. Be objective. What is your answer? I have asked this question to people of various races, socioeconomic classes, cultures, mental abilities, education, around the world and have yet to hear anyone answer “NO” to this question.
What are the implications of that? Think again. If I have a sense to do something for someone, and I choose not to do it, what must I do to relieve myself of the burden, clear my conscience, make myself feel better. Do I blame the person I felt to help, remind myself of my own afflictions and problems and why I can’t help them. This is no more than justification.
What does this have to do with this debate? Think about it. Study it. Use positivist science, or naturalistic inquiry, to discover the facts about it. Where can we trace this sense to? Is it merely from our environment? Is it from our culture or genetics? It undistbutably exists in every human being who is not comatose. We cannot see it in animals, we can watch thier instincts, but we can’t feel thier emotions or understand thier logic, or reasoning. What, then are the implications? It exists, but explaining it is like trying to tell someone what salt tastes like. Could such a sense evolve? Did Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon mothers leave thier children there on the ground and somehow by an act of instinct begin nurturing them like any animal? Was there no reason, no emotion, no intelligence?
Einstein said, “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” Darwin, believe it or not, was a Christian. He traveled teh world and saw patterns in nature. These patterns strengthened his convictions about some type of creator. Many of the ideas of scientists have been distorted in order to appease another’s agenda. For example, Maslow didn’t come up with the heirarchy of needs. His ideas of actualization were spiritual before they were ever physical. In fact, Maslow’s science actually turns the well known and often taught heirarchy of needs upside down. Are we too lazy to do the homework and find out the original intend of many of the scientists who we now use thier names in vain?
What is the purpose of this life? How convenient and shallow an answer to assume that it is merely to get all we can and die. Where did we really come from? Where does this sense to do for others come from? Start asking intelligent questions? Think about your thoughts. Ask, ask, ask, and don’t take my word or anyone elses word for it. Do the work necessary to find out for yourself or you will be blown by every idea, flavor of the month, and remain suspended in indecision and relentless discomfort about the deeper issues of your heart.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Very few phylogenetic trees of the astronomically large number of possible trees fits evolutionary patterns
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hey Chris.
The science camp demands evidence.
The Jesus camp does not.
There’s nothing intelligent about creationism. It’s an idea based on a myth for which there is no evidence.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Hey, with passages like Ezekiel 23:3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. & 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
And
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Or maybe even
From the “Song of Solomon” or Song of Songs depending on which book you read….Notice how it’s one of two books in the bible that don’t mention god???
5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him
5:5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
5:6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
Since the “bowels were moved for him” I’m guessing this is tacit approval of anal sex????
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Interesting how the apologists for academic orthodoxy have distinguished themselves in this very blog thread as being the inquisition witch-hunters the documentary aims to expose. Very educational!
Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.
Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film. Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.
Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.
Meanwhile, science marches on. Teleology in life - in its forms, its processes and its evolution - is something we could fruitfully employ for our own practical purposes. Which is what science is all about. It need not be truth, and doesn’t pretend to absolutes. It just has to work. FAPP [For All Practical Purposes]. We can do more with design than we can ever hope to do with randomness.
They won’t call it “Intelligent Design,” and they won’t be quantifying any gods or anti-gods. That’s okay. That was never science’s job description in the first place.
I look forward with interest to your film, Ben!
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hey, with passages like Ezekiel 23:3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. & 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
And
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
Or maybe even
From the “Song of Solomon” or Song of Songs depending on which book you read….Notice how it’s one of two books in the bible that don’t mention god???
5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him
5:5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
5:6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.
This bible sounds like a really hott book to read. Who needs porn????
Since the “bowels were moved for him” I’m guessing this is tacit approval of anal sex????
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
The problem is neatly illustrated by the contrast between Nullifidian’s post at #151 (careful, factual, well-documented, long, thought-provoking) with Teno Groppi’s post right after that at #152 (facile, glib, content-free, short, emotionally appealing). The ID “argument” is consistently superficial and easily digested, and any serious scientific response takes a little work to understand. We’re doomed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
For the heck of it, more information about another ID martyr:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
People who think evolution is not a proven, rigorously tested scientific theory should be given last years flu shot.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I’d say that some of the people who’ve been making comments here have an incredible ammount of growing up to do, because you’re behaving like five-year olds. “MY WAY OR NO WAY!” That’s what I see coming from you here.
Intelligent Design may have no certain proof, but nobody here seems to consider that Evolution could be a form of said design. You’re too busy attacking the people who dissagree with your views.
Since when did the United States become the land of “My Way or the Highway!” Last I heard, EVERY citizen of this nation was entitled to their OWN BELIEFS. They do NOT have to agree with the established community. It’s a part of faith to believe in that which may nto be possible.
That’s why they call them miracles.
But anyway… folks, I’ve been through college, and I hate to say it, but what Mr. Stein believes, from what I’ve seen, is true. One of my professors did NOT like the idea that I believed in the possibility of an Intelligent Creation.
He was nice enough not to affect my grade because of it, but he made my life difficult because of it.
Name-calling won’t do a thing, folks, but if the people who believe in Evolution are going to be busy doing it, then there’s no point in having this conversation.
Intelligent people don’t talk to self-serving, self-righteous brats with the attitudes of children. No matter what you believe, it’s your right to believe it… not the right of scientists and educators to shove what we’re supposed to believe is the ONLY possibility down our throats.
Good day, gentlemen and -ladies.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.
It is no use denying it.
Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I see Ben took down his second blog entry which I had posted some glaring quotes from. I’ll just duplicate them here.
(Ben I’m forlorn that a previous law professor is dragging us back to 1925 Dayton Tennessee to reenact the Scopes Monkey Trial).
Anyway based off this internet article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884991/posts
Walt Ruloff a writer for this movie claims:
“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer. “People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”
Now if this is true, how come PZ Meyers one of this interviewed was unequivocally duped. Heres the evidence for that:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Steven @ 191:
Prove it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Ben,
You made so many untrue and uninformed statements in your rant that I have lost almost all respect I had for you.
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
This is blatantly false. Frances Collins is the director of the Human Genome Project and is a well known evangelical Christian as well as a prominent scientist. Ken Miller is another fine example. Both have won multiple grants to study and has had multiple publications in scientific journals.
I see nothing in the trailers about statements in support of evolution by the current and previous pope. I see nothing in the trailers about the Clergy Letter Project, where over 10,000 clergy members have publicly supported evolution. ARE YOU EXPELLING THEIR OPINIONS?
Have you read the transcripts of the Dover trial? I have, and it is the creationists and intelligent design proponents that were proven to be liars. They lied about never using the phrase “creation science” but were recorded on video and audio doing so. They lied about the source of funding for the Of Pandas and People books, with the school board member having written the check himself on behalf of a Baptist church.
Ben, please re-examine this issue. Talk to George Will and Frances Collins. Look at what happend in Dover when the Republican school board members were all replaced by Democrats in an republican dominated district.
Ben, you are dead wrong on this one.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Stephen Carr wrote, “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”
Submit a research proposal to whom? Have they tried the Discovery Institute? Did Answers in Genesis consider diverting a little of the $27M they spent on the Creation Museum to actual research?
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Hahahahahaha.
Yeah ok. Maybe they know they don’t want to waste the money.
Why don’t they just use the word alien, Thor or Zeus in their research proposal.
They’re all equally valid as “designers”.
Someone should prove the existence of a “designer” before they try to study the “designer’s” work through biology.
It’s amazing how the Christians want to validate their superstitions with research.
Why doesn’t the Baptist Church pour their money into ID research? Open up labs, create new vaccines and genetic treatments?
I guess praying over a petri dish isn’t a very useful method of science.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
@ Stephen Carr:
Your hilarious satirical response left me gasping for air after the immense gut laugh. Thank you. (Still trying to collect myself) You should think about sending a resume to The Onion.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them”
Really? Why is the “Discovery Institute” (sponsored by DOMINIONIST Ahmanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute ) spending all of its cash of press releases, then?
ID = PR. Just like this film.
Show my predictions. Show me a theory. Show me experiments..
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Make that Steven in the post above.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Every proponent of ID that posts on here completely misses the point and by doing so just highlights the ignorance that keeps this movement alive. If you have a conclusion such as: an intelligent designer created the universe, you are already doing psuedoscience. Before even posing the question of an intelligent designer, proper evidence of said designer has to be studied. YOU CANNOT HAVE A HYPOTHESES BASED ON A PILE OF ASSUMPTIONS! And so far ID proponents have a million assumptions, but no evidence. This crying about not being heard or not getting the funding and all that whining misses the whole point. If you aren’t using the scientific method, its psuedoscience. Scientists would be glad to accept any new theory provided it uses the proper methods of eliminating bias. And when you have your conclusion before you have evidence, the bias is completely out of order. By argueing that “(they)have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.” is a STRAWMAN. You make a lot of accusations based on no evidence, which is ironic considering the state of the ID hypothesis. If ID can fund a propaganda piece such as the film being discussed here, then I am sure that research can also be funded. ID proponents: what is it about propaganda that you love? How bout this question: If there was a funded scientific study about ID that came up negative, would you be ready to discard your theory?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I’m intrigued, though I fear that Stein, as a funnyman, may unintentionally trivialize an issue that is a serious one, when he could have spent the movie focusing on scientifically debunking evolution. It’s like when mainstream conservative talk show hosts debate global warming and focus on the hypocrisy of the Learjet/limousine liberal global warmists. Sure, that’s important to note, because it proves that even the loudest mouths aren’t true believers or they’d actually make an effort to change their lives (while telling us to do it)… but the real issue should be burying these people with the science that debunks global warming more and more each day.
The same goes for evolution. It’s a huge issue, being debunked on countless fronts, and no movie could ever do it justice… unless the movie were literally hundreds of hours long… But I find this website to be a great resource. They focus on “discoveries” in mainstream science, while analyzing how the brainwashed Darwin community overlooks what the discoveries actually say. Often the Darwinists will themselves unknowingly point out just how flawed their story is, based on the evidence they discovered, and then just breeze on by, still assuming the same old story must be true.
Quick note: Is everyone so arrogant to pull out the “the science is in”, line, when until a couple weeks ago “the science was in” that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US, and 5 of the top 10 were in the last decade… Now 1998 is number 2, 4 of the top 10 were in the 1930s, 5 before WWII… Hell, here are the top 10 hottest years:
1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939
NASA GISS REFUSED TO RELEASE THEIR METHODS, as do all global warmist groups. They wouldn’t tell the public how they arrive at their conclusions, so one guy took it upon himself to reverse engineer the figures and caught a huge mistake that began around 2000. NASA GISS ADDMITTED (to him) their mistake, and SILENTLY made changes to the numbers available on their site…. BUT TOLD NO ONE!!! No press release, no mainstream media coverage to speak of… I think Rush Limbaugh’s brief mentions were as mainstream as it got.
So I ask you, wasn’t “the science in” on those numbers that have COMPLETELY changed, just a couple weeks ago?
But don’t you dare question Darwin!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Mr Stein, To be frank I`ve not heard of you before but I must comment. To use deceit in the promulgation of a view wether true or not demeans yourself and the cause being promulgated, I would have thought you would have learnt that after your work with Richard Nixon. With regard to comment 191 I would be interested in which research projects are being written about.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
So, instead of making movies, and making museums, and sending out textbooks, why don’t they devote their money into all of these research programmes that are ready to go?
You’d think that the cost of the Creation Museum could have easily supported several research projects.
Unless, of course, there aren’t any research projects.
How come, when Behe wants to get a book publishes, the money is there for him. The people at the Discovery Institute do very well for themselves. Yet, none of this money can go for the ‘multitude of research programmes ready to go’.
Yeah, Right.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Many of the comments on this blog illustrate very well the need for this film. So many claims made against ID are just not true, such as the claim that they have never published material supportive of ID in peer reviewed literature. The fact is thousand of articles exist. I once started to compile a list, but stopped after it was pointed out to me by my fellow scientists that, if made public, such a list could hurt the career of the scientists involved. I learned of stories of ID supporters who were outed and found it very difficult to publish after being outed. I learned that angry letters were sent to the journals that published their articles threatening to never publish in those journals again. I learned of graduate students being taken away from such heretics and worse. I decided to keep my list to myself. Another reason was, after my list was well over 100 pages long, I realized that this job was far more than I could handle now. The list would be far too long for me alone to maintain. Most ID researchers, to survive, must be firmly in the closet and stay there until it is safe to come out. I hope that this film will help in this goal. Science can not progress without academic freedom, and the environment today against ID supporters is intolerable, all fair minded persons agree.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
To the below commentor:
I am no scientist, but i am equipped to answer your questions.
1) Give a comprehensive statement about what ID is. What does it mean?
Intelligent Design is the belief that - rather than an origin of order resulting from chaos and matter from nothing - the entirity of empirical science we observe today does a greater job of pointing toward an intelligent designer - a God, such as the God of the bible - rather than a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy.
2) What predictions does ID theory make?
Depends who you talk to. I happen to be a creationist myself. I think if you attempt to say that the God of the bible used the process of evolution to bring about what we witness today, you’re going to have a harder time conforming that to a genesis account of scripture (and additionally, i dont believe that all of what we have observed in known history fits an evolutionary viewpoint very well).
3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence?
For starters, the assumption that there is no God is not a given. Apart from that I assume most scientists who believe in some form of ID are equally if not more objective than atheistic scientists. Take radiometric dating for instance: I can believe that the ratio i end up with (based on the assumed initial amount of lets say pottasium) yields the argon necessary to a ‘prove’ a relative age, but is that really being objective? Im assuming an initial pottasium content. Im assuming that decay rates have always been a constant. Im assuming a lot of things and then im stating in faith that what I say IS the absolute truth. I can use carbon-14 dating and confidently state that it is a process unable to be used on dinosaur bones because they are 65 million years old, and yet I can ignore fresh unfossilized recently discovered dinosaur bones (such as the t-rex bone with some intact blood). So to summarize my answer here: ID scientists probably use principles and standards similar to atheist scientists - but without the undying premise that God MUST NOT exist.
4) What recent discoveries have ID researchers made?
I follow creationist circles, but we arent a far cry from the general ID circles.
We’ve pointed out discoveries of fish and clams and trilobites at the tops of and all along mountain ranges all over the earth.
We’ve tried to publicize several recent discoveries of fresh unfossilized dinosaur bones (though, you’ll only read things like that as a foot-note - even on fox news).
We have pointed out recent discoveries of so-called ‘living fossils’ (such as coelocanth) as reasoning that fossil-dating based on positioning in the earths strata is a faith-based assumption.
We continue to point out the tremendous lack of transitional fossils, the complete absence of any witnessed evolution where an animal acquires new genetic information turning it into a different animal.
We’ve shown that the layers you observe while driving through kentucky or strutting through the grand canyon are more likely formed quickly by layering mud and not the settling of dust over billions of years.
We’ve pointed out the the increased iridium observed in the KT boundary is more likely due to past volcanic activity or small meteorite strikes rather than a big fat meteor - that supposedly killed the dinosaurs without hurting any other animals - striking the earth as the iridium is concentrated only in spotty areas and not evenly across the globe.
5) What features of ID theory are subject to modification?
If you’re trying to imply that ID proponents are ‘unshifting’ solely based on the fact that they do not throw the possibility of a creator off the table, you could turn that around and equally argue that atheists HAVE thrown the possibility of a creator off the table - and due to arrogance and an insistance that they have observed enough of the world in their mere life to plainly state “i know exactly what happened in the ancient past”.
What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change ID theory?
Mass transitional fossils showing tremendous variety between a dinosaur and a chicken (or whatever other animals you like).
A clear disagreement between historical/religious records of geologic events (such as a worldwide flood) and what is actually observed.
A lack of order in the universe.
Some observable natural break from the process of entropy SOMEWHERE in the universe.
The formation of a star.
Im sure i could think of some more. Don’t get me wrong, i dont believe the would prove beyond a doubt that God does not exist, but I believe that those things would be good challenges to theism.
What criteria is there for accepting a change?
Proponent of creationism/Intelligent Design havent had the luxury of ‘accepting a challenge’ for the past 50 years. I would love to accept a challenge where a kid like me is given equal time to publicly debate an atheist peer without being shut up. What we do get is verbal assaults, mockery, down-grading in class, and uncontested regularly and massly publicized criticism from most government funded institutions and generally all popular media.
6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
Very well in the case of creationism i believe. As for other varying opinions within ID proponents - I suppose it would depend on the individual. The point is we’re not a movement to push our beliefs on anyone. We’re a movement to RE-examine a definite possibility that was once taught in schools but is now regarded by government institutions as politically incorrect and ‘wrongful’ to teach - even as a possibility.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
lol. suddenly I realized these posts are descending, not ascending. The above post was made as a reply to Post #1 - Rob.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“asic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”
I wouldn’t “censor” the film. I want it widely seen because it looks like some nice evidence that “intelligent design” is inspired by religion, not science. It looks to be potentially great evidence that ID is creationism, not science. Heck, Ben appeals quite directly to religion in the trailers and on his blog.
All the other silly whining about some “atheistic” or “Darwinist” orthodoxy trying to “repress” ID only adds to the potential amusement value of this film.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”
Really? Could someone point me in the direction of this “multitude of research programmes ready to go”? What are the specific hypotheses to be tested in these programs? What are the experimental designs? What are the experimental methods to be used? How will the data be analyzed? Come on, lay it on us! We’d all be curious to know!
As for whining about not being able to fund this research, well, don’t expect any sympathy from me there. There are lots of researchers who can’t get their grants funded even with good proposals. The funding climate sucks right now. The NSF and NIH are not exactly swimming in money at the moment.
Besides, the Discovery Institute supposedly exists to promote and fund ID; so why isn’t it funding some of this research, rather than PR?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Finally, this is my reaction to Ben’s involvement in this movie.
Very disappointing and sad.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”
Gee, and I thought intelligent design “makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life”. Who are these intelligent design researchers who have pinpointed the cause as “God”?
Teach the controversy within the ID community!
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”–Steven Carr @ 191
Hasn’t the religious right been whining for years about the National Endowment for the Arts, saying that they don’t want to fund art they don’t like — but this isn’t censorship because the artist is free to produce whatever, it’s just that the public shouldn’t be forced to pay for it!
But here, Creationist scientists are being “censored” if the that National Academy of Sciences or whatever other scientific body refuses to fund their nonsense? Talk about double standard!
There are plenty of rich Jesus-freaks who should be happy to pour millions of dollars into creationism “research”. Pat Robertson can raise more from a singe creationism telethon than most scientists could get in a decade of grant proposals. Why don’t you true believers pony up the cash for your pet hobby horse first before demanding that those of us in the reality based community take money away from real science for this tripe?
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Ben Stein is famous for denying that Deep Throat was real — out of his zealous worship for Nixon. It doesn’t seem out of character at all for him to deny that fossils are real out of zeal to worship some other god.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Lots of pro ID posts on here, but none with any actual science in them. I did like the one guy who rolled out the old, long discredited creationist SLoT canard.
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What evolutionists propose is like a carrot on a stick. They can never arrive at a conclusion because the time it would take to make the neccessary observations is impossible. The so-called “evidence” simply shows that an organism is what it is and does what it does, which does not prove that anything is “evolving” in the Neo-Darwinian sense.
A virus adapts and changes to its environment and even develops methods to resist efforts to destroy it, but then so does a highly trained US Navy Seal. Will the Seal’s offspring exhibit the same traits? Or will subsequent generations of the Seal and his children show a variety of adaptability in a variety of environments?
The Scientific Method simply makes evolutionary theory look good, keeps everybody busy and keeps the grants coming. But since these theories in particular cannot be tested and replicated in a controlled environment, the bottom line is that evolution is still based on faith and belief.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Intelligent Design may have no certain proof, but nobody here seems to consider that Evolution could be a form of said design.
The reason we don’t consider it is because if intelligent design is supposed to be an alternative theory to evolution, then it cannot simply replicate evolutionary theory in every respect but slap another label on it. There has to be a point of substantative difference, either in the extent of its explanatory power (which, for it to prevail, should be greater) or in making predictions which are distinct from evolutionary theory and accurate.
Since when did the United States become the land of “My Way or the Highway!”
About the time that Bush said that you either support him or you’re on the side of the terrorists.
But anyway… folks, I’ve been through college, and I hate to say it, but what Mr. Stein believes, from what I’ve seen, is true. One of my professors did NOT like the idea that I believed in the possibility of an Intelligent Creation.
He was nice enough not to affect my grade because of it, but he made my life difficult because of it.
How? Did he stalk you and chuck copies of On the Origins of Species wrapped in obscure threatening notes through your windows? Did he organize cat calls when you walked through the quad?
Or did he simply make you support your ideas and challenge them? If that’s what he did, that’s his job. I would ask when America became a land where higher education was supposed to be an academically and intellectually unchallenging free “A” dispenser, but I’m already depressingly certain that I have a rough idea.
I can tell you don’t like the concept, but nevertheless educators are not bound by what is now called “balance” in their pedagogy. They’re only bound by fairness in their individual treatment of students. You did your work, I presume, and got a good grade, despite disagreeing with the professor. That was fair.
However, if you’re teaching a class on the germ theory of disease, it is not necessary to bring on a supporter of the miasma theory. If you’re teaching about heliocentrism, it is not necessary to seek out the opinions of geocentrists. Science is a striving after truth, and it is not served by introducing nonsense in a mistaken quest for balance.
If intelligent design supporters want to be taken seriously, they will have to do what I outlined above: develop a real theory which makes predictions which diverge from predictions of evolutionary theory, identify and provide evidence for the mechanism underlying their theory, and show that it has greater, not lesser, explanatory power.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Hope the movie creates as much stir as this blog and website. It is obvious by the screed that most of the responders have posted that they must feel threatened by it, otherwise why all the ugly, ad hominen attacks?
The bottom line: there are many brilliant people and scientists who do not subscribe to Neo-Darwinist dogma. I would direct people to check out the American Scientific Affiliation at http://www.asa3.org/
Also, check out the falsifiable creation model with ideas on old earth creation at www.reasons.org.
It takes more faith to believe that the universe and life is here by chance than to believe in a supreme being. My Chrisitan worldview has better and more logical explanatory power for good and evil, death, purpose for life, redemption, etc than a strictly materialist or atheist worldview. Keep up the good fight.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Mr. Stein,
Looking forward to watching your movie with my girl, a nice bucket of popcorn and a song in my heart.
Truly, you have hit upon a truism as certain as the earth orbiting around the sun: Academic scientists are prickly, myopic, humorless, pedantic bean-counters, who have no concept of seeing the broad, big picture.
Let me amend that: Many scientists are great — I’m referring to these juvenile evolutionary biologists. Just absolutely worthless. If they were all fired, the aggregate sum of human knowledge would increase immediately.
Planning a party for Feb 12 - to smack down these losers!
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Is there conclusive proof that proves the Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true? By conclusive, I mean conclusive, without any more of the “keep digging until we find them missing links”. I feel that until those gaps in Darwin’s theory are filled, Darwinism has no claims to be the only answer any more than ID does. What proof is there?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Also, I keep reading that all scientist want from ID is a testable theory, can you test evolutionary theory?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
To Steven Carr (#191): Really? Care to link to even ONE intelligent design research program?
The Discovery Institute has a budget of $11 million. Know what it spends that money on? Not research, but PR. In fact, the single biggest DI expense is for “Creative Response Concepts,” the same public relations firm that promoted the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, the Republican National Committee, the Christian Coalition, and the Contract With America.
Don’t be fooled. The ID folks have enough money to pay Ben Stein’s hefty salary, with plenty left over for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If they wanted to do any science (in their spare time, perhaps?), they could easily afford it. But they don’t.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I see Ben took down his second blog entry which I had posted some glaring quotes from. I’ll just duplicate them here.
(Ben I’m forlorn that a previous law professor is dragging us back to 1925 Dayton Tennessee to reenact the Scopes Monkey Trial).
Anyway based off this internet article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884991/posts
Walt Ruloff a writer for this movie claims:
“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,” said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer. “People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”
Now if this is true, how come PZ Meyers one of this interviewed was unequivocally duped. Heres the evidence for that:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Wow. I thought Ben Stein was a smart guy. Why the heck would he attach his name to the nearly-sunk SS Intelligent Design?
As far as ID research getting done, how much did this movie cost to make? How much does the Intelligent Design cabal squander per year on speeches, conferences, books, and press releases? Couldn’t they use a little bit of that money to start a lab someplace? Sure, science ain’t cheap, but it’s not THAT expensive. Last I checked, Behe still has a lab. Why doesn’t he do some ID science?
I’ll help out. I work in a lab. Give me a testable ID hypothesis and some of the methods, and I’ll give your experiment an honest try. I’d love to work on a testable ID hypothesis; it’s just that I have never seen one.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Steven Carr said:
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.
It is no use denying it.
Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.”
Steven, that’s interesting, if nothing else. It confuses me because the Discovery Institute, the various creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis, and the museums they run, have MILLIONS of dollars at their disposal! Creationists and IDists have made countless more millions through book sales and the like. What is holding them back? Since when does research on this topic take THAT much money? What kind of research proposals could you possibly be talking about?
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Steven Carr Says:
“The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them”
Ha-ha!
That is just HILARIOUS!
No funding?!
So how did they fund a multi-MILLION dollar ID museum?
How did they fund this HUGE budget movie (pretending to be a low-cost rebel movie)?
How do they fund all the people at sites like Answers In Genesi?
Seriously, Mr. Carr, you can do better than that. I mean, SERIOUSLY.
Come up with something better than fake tears of oppression. For oppressed, you are not.
The ID movement has MASSIVE funding, and you know it. But just like the creators of this movie used lies and deception to trick people into giving them an interview, you are following up with your own deceptions.
Dishonesty is the IDers first and foremost weapon against reason and logic.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I’ve commented three times and it continues to be deleted.
How deceitful.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
A brief and incomplete list of scientists who have been or are critical of aspects of Darwinian evolutionary theory :
Lynn Margulis
Stephan Wolfram
Motoo Kimura
Graeme Donald Snooks
Richard Goldschmidt
Fred Hoyle
Chandra Wickramsinghe
Steven Gould
Richard Lewontin
None of whom were been “drummed” out of academia or “suppressed” in any way and all of them did pretty well for themselves. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=218533
Anyone following the field knows there’s really a bunch of people that have added to the “new-new synthesis” but they bring MEAT to the table, not the hand-waving vacuous PROMISE of future meals that ID keeps yapping about
And to the ID-backers here that keep claiming ID “has” some research program that has been supressed, like Steven Carr, who says ” Dozens of high-class research projects have been knocked back by the cabal who control evolutionary biology.” Show me some evidence that you KNOW this to be true and that such proposals have been rejected by academics. Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research and other ID/creationist fronts have millions in their budget, yet they produce NOTHING that they submit to mainstream journals because the work is shoddy and filled with holes. Anyone doubting this can simply visit http://www.pandasthumb.org/ or http://www.talkorigins.org/ and look at the hard facts.
The truth of the matter is that ID was slapped down by a CONSERVATIVE republican judge at Dover becauseID-ists like Behe revealed in testimony that ID was on a par with ASTROLOGY, among other things. Oh, and that judge later got death threats for his honesty.
Stein, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having actually LOOKED at the facts and instead plunging into selling snakeoil and conning the marks for profit.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
AR Matthew Y #190:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and your beliefs. You are not entitled to teach your beliefs as though they were established fact, unless you can provide the necessary evidence.
Your comments about how things should work in the US indicate that you are of the opinion that this is a political issue. I agree. It is clearly a political issue and not a scientific issue. I have no objection
to having ID taught in political science/social studies classes. Or comparative religion classes.
What is and what is not science is not something to be decided by US citizens - science is a global concern.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Ben & All, (if you get down this far)
Let me start by saying that I am a scientist (EEbackground working in Info Tech) who completely believes in God and believes basically in what ID says (the world is too complex to have evolved by random chance alone). I Do NOT agree, however, that it means ID should be taught in ANY public education system, where evolution should be. What evolution explains is HOW we evolved. What ID and other ‘creationist’ theories explain is WHY we evolved. It is as simple as that. There is scientific evidence to support HOW we evolved, and that is what public schools should teach as part of their science curriculum. If you want to insure that your children also learn your views, or any other views on WHY we evolved, you have ample opportunity to teach them at home or send them to the private school of your choice. ID is just a label and methodology to make creationism sound more ’sciency’ to try to force it into science curriculum, but that doen’t change the basic distinction made above. To keep wasting everyone’s time/money and energy trying to force this into the public education system instead of using those resources to solve the thousads of other REAL problems we have facing our society is misguided and self serving to everyome else’s detriment!!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Scientism is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
#191: “The truth of the matter is that intelligent designers have a multitude of research programmes ready to go, but cannot get funding for them, because when they submit a research proposal, it is automatically thrown out by evolutionary biologists who simply see the word ‘God’ and reject it.”
Really? Could you list a few of these rejected proposals? The ID crowd is pretty good at pointing out their supposed oppression, so it shouldn’t be hard to turn up. Also, the leading ID figures say that ID is not a religious proposition. Why would their proposals have anything about God in them?
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Lack of “certain proof” is not a problem. In science, no idea about how things work is considered proven with absolute certainty.
The problem is that however consistent Intelligent Design might be with other scientific theories, or all of the available evidence … it is NOT science unless it is 1) falsifiable and 2) makes predictions.
This is basic and important and a point that “ID as science” advocates willfully ignore.
If you subscribe to Intelligent Design, that’s fine. Just accept that it is a philosophical or theological position and not a scientific one, and don’t try to get it taught in science class, and don’t cry foul when you can’t get science grants to study it, or when peer-reviewed journals of science ignore any papers you submit on the subject.
That’s why Ben Stein’s statements here are so frustrating to some of us. They belie a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, a misunderstanding that he seeks to perpetuate … all for what? So he can cry oppression? So he can accuse university tenure boards of trying to police their professor’s thoughts?
Consider Ben’s blog entry and the previews for this film for a moment, assuming that everything I’ve said is true. Spend a couple minutes mulling it over from our point of view. Now can you see why some of us take a rather adversarial stance towards Ben, the producers of Expelled and some of the other who’ve commented here?
We’re not trying to oppress anybody. I’m not looking forward to the release of this film not because I hate freedom, but because I hate misrepresentation of the facts and I hate anything that damages the scientific literacy of the public.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Ben, you are a smart man; no one could deny it. But one of the problems with intelligence is that it can make you over-confident in your beliefs. The ideas that you presented in the essay above are absurd.
Suppose I thought that the earth rested on the back of a Turtle. Would you hire me for a position at NASA? Beliefs need evidence. It’s right for universities to discriminate in this way.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
“Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.””
No, the message is not to discourage conversation entirely, but to discourage pointless conversation. Until IDists actually produce a coherent theory and some evidence to support it, all conversation about ID is pointless.
For all we know, the universe and everything in it could have been poofed into existence 5 minutes ago and all of our memories could have been poofed into existence along with us. That’s certainly no less interesting an idea than ID, yet it’s also not worth taking the time to discuss (and for the same reason as ID — lack of evidence).
Oh, about all those anonymous scientists who propose unnamed ID research programs only to have their funding denied, why doesn’t the Discovery Institute fund them instead of spending their multimillion dollar yearly budget entirely on PR? Why haven’t these nameless scientists sought grants from the Templeton Foundation? Why didn’t the makers of this film choose to fund some actual research into the subject they choose to advocate for?
There is more than enough money in the hands of ID sympathizers to fund ID research if there way any to be done. The martyr act IDists pull is simply that — an act. They have to act persecuted because their ideas simply haven’t been able to EARN their places in the realm of science by accomodating the evidence and making accurate, meaningful predictions.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Mutation and natural selection is the foundation of evolution. We can accelerate our mutation by eating Mutation Paste which is now available commercially. See:
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/MutationPasteResults.html
It tastes like a Barlett pear.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Big Science is atheism dressed up in a pink tutu.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Good luck making your movie. As for me, I give you my commitment I will pirate it and make sure you get not a cent of my money.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“Too often what are called ‘educated’ people are simply people who have been sheltered from reality for years in ivy-covered buildings. Those whose whole careers spent in ivy-covered buildings, insulated by tenure, can remain adolescents into their golden retirement years.”
Thomas Sowell
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Some have hypothesized a large number of monkeys sitting at a large number of keyboards might eventually produce cohesive intelligence. This BLOG has proven otherwise.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Richard Dawkins is atheism dressed up in a tweed jacket.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This is interesting. I tried to post a message containing the names of MANY people who have objected to and been critical of Evolutionary theory — who still work and have never been “drummed” out of academia or “suppressed” in any way.
I seem to have been censored.
Why is that, Ben?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
The truth of the matter is that ID was slapped down by a CONSERVATIVE republican judge at Dover because ID-ists like Behe revealed in testimony that ID was on a par with ASTROLOGY, among other things.
And that judge later got death threats for his honesty.
Stein, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having actually LOOKED at the facts and instead plunging into selling snakeoil and conning the marks for profit.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…
#185, jb says:
“Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”
Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?
Or maybe the threats that he got?
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)
Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html
(from the Pandasthumb article):
“Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.
The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
….”
(read on, and learn something)
Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
(from Forrest):
“Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”
(jb again):
“Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film.”
Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.
Sure, we haven’t seen the film yet, but guess what? We’re replying to the stuff that Stein has posted, as well as in some cases the claims that ID has made repeatedly in the past.
Unless the film differs greatly from the ID party lines that we’ve all seen before, I think that we can make a pretty good guess as to the kinds of things the movie will have: Same old, same old.
(more jb):
“Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.”
(more conspiracy thinking: read some European history about the Dark Ages if you want to see who’s really been bad at that)…Good grief.
If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.
Can you name any religious right figure who, at, or before the time of the Scopes Trial in the ’20s was saying that we should hear both sides of the story when it came to evoluton vs. creation??
Why is it only once that the ideas the religous right supports are refuted, THEN we hear them talking about stuff like “teaching the controversy”???
Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.
Enough conspiracy theories, jb.
(jb again):
“Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.”
Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?
If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?
Yep, more conspiracy theories!
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/dembski_and_darwinian_fascists.php
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I have read nearly all of the 2 days worth of comments and one statement that keeps coming up is the claim that these producers lied. As a producer myself I feel compelled to point out that many (probably more than half) of productions change titles mid stream. It is just part of the creative process - Art. In the case of this production I could see where the producers, after viewing many of their interviews, decided to change the title to reflect more of what their documentary had become.
As for there being some sort of conspiracy, I doubt that also. Just as Michael Moore is blatant about his objective via his titles, so too does this documentary seem to be. They believe that ID is worth investigating. And, it would seem, they believe that the popular school of thought in this area is trying to suppress that desire. That is NOT a conspiracy, rather a statement from their experience.
You must admit, the title is actually a rather good play on words!
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Ok, my last comment didn’t make it, I’ll try again…
Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…
#185, jb says:
“Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”
Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?
Or maybe the threats that he got?
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)
Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html
(from the Pandasthumb article):
“Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.
The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
….”
(read on, and learn something)
Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
(from Forrest):
“Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”
(jb again):
“Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film.”
Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.
Sure, we haven’t seen the film yet, but guess what? We’re replying to the stuff that Stein has posted, as well as in some cases the claims that ID has made repeatedly in the past.
Unless the film differs greatly from the ID party lines that we’ve all seen before, I think that we can make a pretty good guess as to the kinds of things the movie will have: Same old, same old.
(more jb):
“Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.”
(more conspiracy thinking: read some European history about the Dark Ages if you want to see who’s really been bad at that)…Good grief.
If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.
Can you name any religious right figure who, at, or before the time of the Scopes Trial in the ’20s was saying that we should hear both sides of the story when it came to evoluton vs. creation??
Why is it only once that the ideas the religous right supports are refuted, THEN we hear them talking about stuff like “teaching the controversy”???
Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.
Enough conspiracy theories, jb.
(jb again):
“Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.”
Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?
If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?
Yep, more conspiracy theories!
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/dembski_and_darwinian_fascists.php
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Just from the short trailer we know that this movie will be brimming with lies and deception. Of course, we already knew that from the false pretense under which the scientists in the movie were interviewed.
ID is not science. If it were science, it wouldn’t need stupid movies and frivolous lawsuits to help it. If it were science, it would make predictions and be supported by evidence.
Of course Mr. Stein lies when he accuses science of not allowing people to even consider an intelligent creator. At last count, 40% of all scientists believe in God, and it should be obvious that at least a large percentage of those have some idea about how God fits into what we know about evolution. The difference is that they recognize that their religion is not science and does not belong in the scientific arena.
Mr. Stein, your religion does not belong in the scientific arena, no matter how much you believe it to be true. Teaching it in religion class, philosophy class, psychology class, or sociology class is fine. Pretending that it is science is not.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
“The institutional vanity and intellectual slovenliness of America’s campus-based intelligentsia have made academia more peripheral to civic life than at any time since the 19th century.”
George Will
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
If Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is true, then truth is really not something we can know. Our thoughts, our very consciousness - would be accidental occurrences that have only managed to confer us a survival advantage. They would not be based on any type of higher “Objective Truth”, nor could we even be certain that they could be trusted to be properly conceiving of anything as actually true. We would have no basis by which to compare what could be true with could not be because we simply would not know - ever. How could we know *the objective* when our “knowledge” is merely, simply, an adaptation that just happened to allow us to survive? The uncertainty of our very consciousness would lend us to the utter hopelessness of ever really “knowing” anything for certain.
On the same note, it should be said that simply being a scientist does not make one a philosopher. But philosophy is something that we see more and more scientists wading into these days. Take for instance, the veneration given to the Scientific Method. I keep hearing of things being “proven” by the scientific method, or of the scientific method being the only way by which someone can arrive at “True Knowledge”. Yet what many who say these types of things are failing to consider is that the scientific method itself is based on something other than the scientific method. It is based (a priori) on the axiom that the scientific method is a valid method of determining something to be factual. But this axiom itself cannot be tested by the scientific method, because one must fist assume the scientific method to be true before one can use it to prove it. This is much like saying “I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is!”. Now, neither of these statements of mine are meant in any way to denigrate the scientific method or the faith in things that work. (Ultimately, in a purely pragmatic paradigm such as Darwinian Evolution, the definition of Truth would actually and only be “that which works”, which of course could not exclude religions.) But I say this to point out, to those who venerate the scientific method, that the scientific method itself rests on something *higher* than the scientific method, that existed before the scientific method. Where do our axioms come from, and how do we know them to be true? Indeed - it all depends on our view of what Truth really is, and on whether we can know it.
The scientific method is based on that assumption that Truth can be known. But, if Darwinian Evolution is truly the case of how things came to be, then it would seem to me that Truth really couldn’t be known, because all our data and the interpretations thereof would merely be the subjective applications of an illusory consciousness that simply “happened to work”. Indeed, as I said previously, the only thing which we could then consider or even have faith in actually being true would be ‘whatever happens to work’. A utilitarian pragmatism. Of course, this would leave us with the problem of never knowing what to believe in until long after it had proven itself to work. And even then, ultimately, it could be proven wrong by its adherents simply dying off. Since the “truth” the knowers adhered to did not enable them to survive, then ultimately it had no realy meaning.
Of course - this is not my view of knowledge or truth, nor do I suspect it is many of yours. But we must ask ourselves, where does our view of truth come from?
We must all make certain assumptions which cannot be, ultimately, proven.
Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design are two sides of the same epistemological coin. They are both valid methods of inquiry, based on certain presuppositions. We must follow where the evidence and our consciences lead. And we must assume that there is something True to actually be known - else why do we even speak about these things?
To Truth!
Endurion
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Maybe if I cut my remarks in half:
Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…
#185, jb says:
“Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”
Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?
Or maybe the threats that he got?
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)
Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion (http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/) never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html
(from the Pandasthumb article):
“Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.
The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
….”
(read on, and learn something)
Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
(from Forrest):
“Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Hi Ben
I just want to congratulate you on your movie. Looks like it will be the comedy smash of the year.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Maybe those who believe in a Creator would stop challenging the Evolutionists in their science if the Evolutionists would stop attacking their theology.
“Hey your karma just ran over my dogma!”
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
When will these arrogant Darwinists learn science without a soul is what led to Hitler and Stalin. They may have the upper hand at the moment but it won’t be long before we return to the good ol’ days when we could put teachers in prison for teaching evolution and not the good book.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Dear Mr. Stein:
Intelligent design is a hypothesis. Specifically, intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe, including living things. This hypothesis cannot be tested and verified so it cannot become a scientific theory.
The proponents of intelligent design describe intelligent design as a “scientific theory.” That misrepresentation is the cause of the acrimony surrounding the topic of intelligent design. If the proponents of intelligent design would stop misrepresenting the status of intelligent design then the furor over intelligent design would evaporate.
The proponents of intelligent design are willfully misrepresenting intelligent design for the purpose of causing a public controversy. They are acting in a dishonest and malicious manner. Their employment of the doctrine of Heavenly Deception (lying to advance their religious agenda) is not fooling anyone. Their lies only make them look untrustworthy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I find the tenor of comments here unsurprising. The level of ignorance on both sides is remarkable. There is a desire by folks on both sides to pit religion vs. science, when historically speaking (at least for Catholicism), it has not been the case.
It was the Catholic thinkers (such as Thierry, Aquinas, Boskovich, etc…) that paved the way for scientific inquiry. Did you know that it was a Jesuit who proved Kepler right, that the Earth moves in an ellipse? Did you know that the science of Seismology was once so dominated by Jesuits that it was called the Jesuit science? Did you know that Copernicus dedicated his work on the heliocentric theory to the Pope, who praised him for it? Did you know that it was the Scholastics who first turned against Aristotle’s ideas on the nature of the universe, because they could not accept the limitations they placed on God? Did you realize that in every civilization accept Catholic Europe, science never got off the ground? And have you ever wondered why?
It is this simple truth: In the Catholic (and hence Christian faith), God is a rational being who created a rational universe, and thus, one that can be understood by men. This was not the case with the Greeks, whose gods were capricious and often interfered in the affairs of men, or the Chinese (the idea of an ordered universe that could be understood would be ridiculous to the Taoists), or the Muslim (as no limitations at all could be made on Allah, the universe existed at his whim), etc… The scientific mind has its roots in Christianity, a fact that more and more historians of science are recognizing.
That said, a lot of the ID proponents do disparage this great heritage by their looking for the facts to fit their certain notion. St. Aquinas warned against this very thing! And the folks like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens go out of their way to attack religion, even when their position gives them absolutely no ground on which to strike.
If there is a war between religion and science, it is because these intolerant folks brought it to us. The rest of us who believe and yet seek to understand God’s universe will prosper fine enough without either of their mistakes.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Thank you.
You always get a constant mantra of how darwinism is “proven,” yet nobody can every produce good evidence. So many people ignore the fact that we can find no instances of one species changing into an entirely different one in our fossil record and that new species appear suddenly, often many at a time (such as in the Cambrian explosion).
Currently, the proof for Darwinism is “it’s the only non-religious explanation we have, so it must be true.” Thank you for helping bring that fact to light.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Why are there so many posts on the Dover case? What does a legal decision by a judge based on the constitutional separation of church and state have to do with science? And the state university systems in this country have more money than God, so why are the Darwinistas whining about the possibility of funding for ID?
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I used to think Ben Stien was smart, but now I realize he’s not. He’s an idiot who thinks the Democrats caused the Khmer Rouge genocide because Woodward & Bernstein took away his job. And apparently, being smarter than Ben Stien is only worth $5,000. I guess the market has answered that question.
Also, what kind of idiot parent lets their child play Everquest to the point where they never even leave the house? Way to, Einstien.
Seriously, what the hell Stien? The About section not 4 inches away from the box I’m typing in calls a scientific fact part of the “Neo-Darwinian machine.” And machine is italicized. God damn man, you’re supposed to be a smart conservative, not whacked out conspiracy theorist.
I just noticed I spelled your name wrong. But since I have lost all respect for you, I will not make the effort to correct it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“my kids don’t go to public schools…..what do i care”—Michael Behe
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.”
Einstein thought the idea of a personal God or an afterlife was ridiculous, and certainly did not believe in any form of creationism. Galileo, Newton, and basically everybody else before were creationists, just as everyone (aside from a few Greek philosophers whose thoughts were suppressed throughout the Christian Age) before Copernicus was a geocentrist.
Propose possible falsification, a test, or evidence for ID, or else it does not deserve to be paid attention to by scientists.
Can you do that Ben? Can you propose a possible falsification of intelligent design? Would obvious poor design (i.e. vertical Eustachian tubes during infancy) disprove the idea?
There are dozens of potential falsifications for evolutionary common decent, and it passes them all.
Some angry desert deity did not make trillions upon trillions upon trillions of stars and planets just to put some bipedal primates through an ordeal of sinning and salvation, or whatever your particular sect of the Abrahamic faiths dictates, on a piece of silicon and iron, alongside billions of other species, of which about 99% are extinct.
It’s scary to think that so many people can retain the worldview of a medieval peasant in the modern age of science.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Jasonx10 said
“6) How does ID explain the evidence produced by conventional science?
Very well in the case of creationism i believe.”
So Jasonx10, please explain how plants of every kind existed on the 3rd day WHEN THERE WAS NO SUN, since it was not created until the 4th?
True scientists who believed this idea would perform an experiment. You could attempt to grow plants of every kind in an environment that simulates no sun light or sun warmth.
True scientists perform such research. Creationists and ID proponents do not do any research. All they do is promote the same old tired arguments over and over again.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
As I read the same old drivel the Darwinists offer as proof ID is not science, I am amazed at their lack of ability to think for themselves. All these old statements about lack of scientific evidence have been answered. The fact that the dogmatic Darwinists refuse to accept them will not change. But then this isn’t really about science. It’s about philosophy and belief on both sides. The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered. It’s so much easier to eliminate opposing ideas through limiting the definition instead of offering proof. The “God of the gaps” idea has never been used in ID theory but is repeatedly offered as rhetoric by the Darwinists. They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge. Talk about a theory with a gap. That’s more like a canyon.
Here’s an idea for you supporters of scientific theory: use scientific facts instead of intimidation, character assassination, court ordered science theory, backroom political cutthroat tactics and dogmatic support of your scientific theory. If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way. The fact that you resort to these other sleazy alternatives speaks volumes.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Evolution is a zillion times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin’s genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together.
That is why so many have defaulted on the Life Science Prize challenge (http://www.lifescienceprize.org/).
All they have is hot air. Hot air contests never end. The Super Bowl and the World Series are not decided with hot air.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Stephen Carr claimed
I give you this about ID grant requests from the Templeton Foundation:
No ID research proposals came in. Why? There are none. My bet is that Carr couldn’t provide one ID research proposal to a federal funding agency that was refused. Consider the ID “journal”, Progress in Complexity. Information, and Design, run by Bill Dembski. An allegedly quarterly journal, it hasn’t had enough material to publish an issue since November 2005. Sure is a lot of ID “research” going on, huh?
The fundamental question to ask of ID is “Where’s the beef”? (RIP, Clara Peller) Other maverick scientific ideas have prevailed by providing good evidence. ID wants to prevail in movie theaters. Now that’s a real research program!
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Obviously, Ben, some website has directed a bunch of Darwinian fundamentalists here to badger you. All they are doing is proving your point. They will not allow dissent
All those who have posted here that there is no evidence of intelligent design please read:
Gene Myers, the computer scientist who mapped the genome, said “What really astounds me is the architecture of life. The system is extremely complex. It’s like it was designed”.
He also said “There’s a huge intelligence there. I don’t see that as being unscientific. Others may, but not me”
Scientists should not be fired or denied tenure because they see what Gene Myers saw.
Bravo, Ben. I can’t wait to see it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
What is TRUTH? There is only one truth, and that is the Holy Word of God. All other so called truth is fiction made up to look like the truth.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Karl,
True, the Super Bowl is not decided with hot air, but scientific results do not stand or fall at the whim of legal definitions. If you want to claim evolution is impossible, then by all means submit your work to a refereed journal. If you can prove evolution wrong, or, as you imply from the “challenge” you site, that creationism is a better scientific theory, you are pretty much guaranteed the Nobel prize.
No critic of evolution has ever come remotely close. The default-judgement is against creationism, not evolution.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I see the Darwin groupies have already infested the site! Ben I look forward to more of your eloquent posts.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
“Obviously, Ben, some website has directed a bunch of Darwinian fundamentalists here to badger you. All they are doing is proving your point. They will not allow dissent”
Don’t be silly, Schaef, Ben has every right to dissent. And those of us who actually know something about the subject have every right to point out his errors and laugh at him a little.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Well, predictably they came out in droves to smash the documentary. And predictably Myers alleges to have been deceived. And predictably, his supporters believe him.
Actually, even though I don’t agree with evolutionism - and the idiocy and ignorance on these comments are quite astounding, I have to say that PZ Meyers allegation does have some weight, only because I can’t imagine any fanatic evolutionist voluntarily including himself in a film like this. No, they prefer to snipe from the background, rather than expose themselves on the very film they’re slavering to ridicule.
So, it would be much appreciated if you would contribute your side to Meyers’ allegation.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Hey, what happened to the other entry on this shiny new rebel blog? The new with the spurious appeal to Johnny Cash and the whiny complaining about those mean old scientists and their biased old facts and puppy-hating logical skilz?
This whole thing is a joke, right? Are we on camera? seriously….?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Freedom For All Said: “The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered.”
It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.
“They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory”
Well, then, who designed the designer?
“while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge.”
Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did. And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.
“If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way.”
We have seen and continue to see evolution happen. We have even seen speciation occur. We have lots of facts.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Hi Ben, I look forward to this movie coming to New Zealand, I will happily play it at my theatre!!! Designer or no Designer.. its the Billian Dollar question and there are only two possibilities.. ask NASA they’ve spent enough money trying to find life on Mars! Perhaps the earth is special??? Most people look at the evidence of design in creation know which way to vote!!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
WOW ben. ID is not science, its religion. read this:
http://zatma.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/mzs/intelligent.html
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I find it very interesting that so many people have so much negative to say about a movie they have never seen. All of the hate directed toward the once beloved Ben Stein proves his point very well. It is so easy to go from being admired to hated by simply mentioning the possibility that Neo-Darwinism may not answer all our questions about creation. One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea? My single small department at the university (molecular biology) gets something like 10 times the whole Discovery budget each year. They are a tiny organization with only a handful of employees and no guarantee of any money when their grants run out. We have state funds and student fees each year, and we bring in more money each year as our research progresses. My, how people like to step on the little guy.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Fact: Every scientist alive agrees that living things have the appearance of design. Believing that Darwinism’s random processes are responsible for every last detail, rather than a designer, is the dogma that must be embraced. What if a scientist claims evidence that Darwinism may not be powerful enough to accomplish some aspect of the complexity of life - that perhaps the engineering in the cell, that human engineers learn from, actually had an engineer. - Heresy!
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
How about Intelligent Math?
1 Kings 7:23 states unequivically that Hiram of Tyre built for Solomon a “molten sea”: “It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.”
Pi is, of course, the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter. We all remember from our secular math classes that Pi is always 3.14159 and so on.
However, Solomon’s molten sea had a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits. Since this must be entirely accurate, Pi must therefore be 3.0.
Intolerant teachers from Big Math have not only failed students but denied tenure to those mathematicians with the independence and courage to state that Pi = 3.
I hope Ben Stein has the courage to expose Big Math as well.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
You’re an idiot. Go back to bible college.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Josh wrote, “You always get a constant mantra of how darwinism is ‘proven,’ yet nobody can every produce good evidence.”
1) Do you have a few references to that “constant mantra”? I’ve literally never heard anyone claim that.
2) Have you glanced at TalkOrigins.org? Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ You have a fundamental right to find it unconvincing, but it’s just a lie to say there’s no evidence.
I’m the “Glenn” who posted the first several messages under that moniker. The last one was someone else. My mistake for using a common name.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
““The institutional vanity and intellectual slovenliness of America’s campus-based intelligentsia have made academia more peripheral to civic life than at any time since the 19th century.”
George Will”
Aaaahaha. George Will accepts the Theory of Evolution. Try again.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Darwinism can do anything you can think of and more. Intricate interacting systems beyond the complexity of the wildest dreams of today’s engineers happened by themselves building one mutated molecule at time - each of the billions of mutations in that precise chain conferring a decisive selective advantage. We unfortunately have no way of observing that which would have taken place over eons of time to provide enough generations and enough organisms to create these structures. Wait, you mean there are organisms like the malarial bacteria that have completed, while we have observed, millions of generations just during our lifetimes - each generation representing multi trillions of malarial organisms. It is a good thing that this hard empirical evidence demonstrates the great diversity of new structures that have been produced in malaria. There is nothing like actual data to shore up our faith in Darwinian macro-evolution. Wow, and this is just one of many bacteria that we can observe the amazing conquests of macro-evolution in action. To think that there are viruses like HIV that have much greater mutation rates than bacteria! What a gold mine for macro-evolution. All indications suggest that there is just is no limits to Darwinian mechanisms. Comrades nod your heads in agreement - to doubt this would be a decidedly poor career move.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I can’t help but wonder at this whole approach. Trying to challenge an established scientific theory through high school students?
History and science are replete with examples of new or improved scientific theories replacing or amending the old ones: relativity, the big bang and plate tectonics, to name a few recent ones. Yet I can’t think of one example where scientists tried to sell their idea to young adults instead of proving the theory to peers. Isn’t this exactly why the scientific community has respected, peer reviewed journals, and conferences? If you have something scientifically substantial, why can’t it withstand scrutiny from the professionals? Conspiracy? If so, why? The scientist who could radically change the theory of evolution, let alone disprove it, would likely become the most famous scientist of the 21st century.
Conservative religious groups are never far behind this drumbeat of “intelligent design,” although they try to separate themselves from their more conservative “creationist” forefathers. I can’t help but see this as an attempt at religious indoctrination. If it were good science they would be trying to convince real scientists with data and actual proof.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“If you can prove evolution wrong…”
That’s a fools errand because the term evolution is based on hypothetical goo to begin with. Given the structure of typical Darwinian reasoning: “If I couldn’t imagine a sequence of events that seem natural to me, then my theory would absolutely break down. Yet see how I can always imagine something.” Darwinian theorizing will remain stuck in goo.
“No critic of evolution has ever come remotely close.”
Only if you’re using the term evolution the way popularizers of Darwinian creation myths do because they use to term to mean anything from all change that has ever happened in the Cosmos to a minute change in the size of finch beaks. To those adhere to “evolution” as a metaphysical system it seems that it is the be all, end all, which makes the term itself an “evolving” form of equivocation. When evolution is that sort of be all, end all to a person it doesn’t really make sense to try to reason with them. After all, intelligent selection is expelled from such a mind as it imagines more “natural selection.” Its own words and symbols and signs aren’t an artifact of intelligence by intelligent design, instead their words trace back to natural selection operating on some worms. A mind of the synaptic “gaps” which believes that may as well be excrement, so one may as well try to reason with worms.
“The default-judgement is against creationism, not evolution.”
Is that just what your Mommy Nature selected for you to say or do you think that you actually just say something?
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Ben,
Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.
What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.
Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.
Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.
Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.
So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…
For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea?”
It’s ironic given that the Darwinian creation myth is often propped up by relatively “MASSIVE” amounts of State funding, from PBS to textbooks (which have contained frauds that biologists have generally failed to correct.) Sometimes it seems that they’re little better than the eugenics movement, probably because they adhere to the same root philosophy of Life.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I’m baffled. Those who’ve come here to support ID or creationism as scientific theories make repeated claims that these “theories”:
• Offer testable, falsifiable hypotheses
• Make testable predictions
…but they never say what these are or provide a reference. David Clark at #219 included a reference to a Web site, but there was no such thing on the page referenced, and a search of the site uncovered–guess what–claims that the site’s contributors have testable, falsifiable hypotheses.
You’re catching a lot of flak here, folks. The science proponents here are exasperated, but they’re offering you really great, free advice. (Search for all of Nullifidian’s posts for a top-notch set of suggestions.) If you do what they call on you to do, and if you’re right, you will be rich and famous. No kidding. If you can show scientifically that evolution is false (and it *is* falsifiable since it’s a scientific theory), you could well win a Nobel prize.
But all I’ve ever seen from proponents of ID and creationism is negative: criticisms of evolution. That’s not science. Science is coming up with your own proposal, as Nullifidian writes above (#218), “a point of substantative difference, either in the extent of its explanatory power (which, for it to prevail, should be greater) or in making predictions which are distinct from evolutionary theory and accurate.”
Seriously, stop carping and *do* something. Contribute something positive and substantive to the field. You have a tremendous amount to gain, and so does humanity.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
WAY TO GO, BEN. NO MATTER WHAT, IT’LL BE FUNNY.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Myers was cajoled into taking part in this movie. Which goes to show just what kind of ethical people creationists are. You can see the details in Myers blog (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/). For those who can’t be bothered to examine the facts by themselves, here’s the letter originally sent to Myers:
Hello Mr. Myers,
My name is Mark Mathis. I am a Producer for Rampant Films. We are currently in production of the documentary film, “Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion.”
At your convenience I would like to discuss our project with you and to see if we might be able to schedule an interview with you for the film. The interview would take no more than 90 minutes total, including set up and break down of our equipment.
We are interested in asking you a number of questions about the disconnect/controversy that exists in America between Evolution, Creationism and the Intelligent Design movement.
Please let me know what time would be convenient for me to reach you at your office. Also, could you please let me know if you charge a fee for interviews and if so, what that fee would be for 90 minutes of your time.
I look forward to speaking with you soon.
Sincerely,
Mark Mathis
Rampant Films
4414 Woodman Ave. #203
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
What is the mathematical possibility that the universe in all of its beauty, mystery, and complexity evolved from some type of primordial soup,? As the dude in the Dodge commercial says, it “can’t be good”.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
WHAT A GREAT IDEA. TALK ABOUT TOUCHED A RAW NERVE?
BASED ON WHAT I SEE HERE, YOU’RE GONNA MAKE BILLION$.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.”
That’s true. History shows that Darwinian reasoning was generally propped up based on theological arguments favorable to naturalism, not empirical evidence. So arguments of this structure: “I don’t think God would make things this way.” “God wouldn’t get his hands dirty like that or something.” “How could a good God make cats to play with mice?” and so on and so forth are used to justify the Darwinian tendency of citing your own imagination as evidence. E.g. “God wouldn’t make the panda’s thumb like this but I can imagine something about it, so that’s evidence for the theory of natural selection.”
It seems that Darwinists are frightened of any answer to their “panda’s thumb” type of negative theology in some form of positive theology. Negative theology has always been used to prop up the Darwinian creation myth, yet supposedly these little fellows who want to crawl back in the womb of Mommy Nature are being so “scientific” that theology has nothing to do with it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:06 pm
wow I don’t suppose its too late to include some of these comments in your movie it shows the arrogant hateful attitude the general public has to the theory of ID and their proponents. Its amazing that some of the people leaving such comments are freshmen when one of the scientists you interview is from the Max plank institute. That of course does not make them wrong but it does make their arrogance astounding. You may not be a scientist but as a scientist I applaud such efforts as I believe promoting ID is more a marketing problem than a science problem. The evidence is strongly in favour of ID but no amount of facts can beat a media characterization that design supporters are ignorant and have no evidence. Its time to break that characterization. Good work
- an obviously “ignorant, stupid and insane” physicist
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
“Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution.”
Except when people use the term evolution to describe all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos. It’s an interesting little question though, for what defines change as change?
“Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did.”
Now I suppose “Evolution” is just about a sentient being…. why just the other day Evolution told me that it was about to naturally select something for me.
“And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.”
Translation: “Even among those of us who make rules allowing us to cite our imaginations as naturalistic evidence (naturally enough), the origin of life is still a problem. In fact, it’s enough of a problem that we almost can’t imagine anything right now…. but just wait a little while and we may be naturally selected to imagine something.”
For some Nature selects, Nature calls… and excrement happens…
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Ben, you have at least one good point. Science education does seem to be failing, because you appear to have absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever. The evidence for evolution continues to pour in every day from a variety of different fields. On the other hand, I have never seen any good evidence for a creator. God has no place in science classrooms, or indeed, anywhere else.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Isn’t science suppose to ask questions? Do you always have to ask the right ones? Shouldn’t everyone in America have the freedom to ask whatever question they want? Just because you may not like the results doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run the test. Just because you don’t like the question some people ask doesn’t mean that you have the right to squelch them. Feel free to think they are an idiot if you want to, but don’t squelch them. If ID is not science then it will not be able to answer any questions with empirical data.
Bring on the tests! Bring on the questions! Leave the attitude at home!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Most of the above seems relatively content-free, but there are some good points. Some of the not-so-good ones:
1) Dover settled it - ID isn’t science! Please - a judge with no scientific credentials copies an ACLU brief, and that’s supposed to have determinative value? Bah.
2) ID isn’t a scientific theory! Sure it is - just because you don’t understand it (or don’t want to) doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. See below for more detail.
3) Expelled misrepresented itself, so they’re bad people! Possibly true, but irrelevant to the validity of the argument they’re going to make in the movie. Tell me - if 60 Minutes uses a hidden camera, are they automatically wrong?
4) ID makes no predictions! This is really a dumb one. By definition, if you make an assertion, any assertion, its testable in some fashion. Even universal negatives (there are no pink dragons) are testable to some extent (I can test whether there are pink dragons here!) Want to falsify ID? Simply demonstrate something (other than life, which would be begging the question) that gives a false positive as having been designed, when it wasn’t.
5) Ken Miller (et. al.) is religious and not-persecuted, so you’re wrong! Uh, guys, the movie is about people who object to materialistic Darwinism and allow the possibility of a religious element as having active involvement - not about people who happen to be religious but believe in a non-participatory God (aka Miller).
6) Abiogenesis is not relevant to Evolution! Phah - Evolution’s foundation is that only materialistic explanations are allowed. If it requires God to create the first life, there’s no longer a valid reason to exclude Him from the rest of the process either. Either everything that happened from “big bang” is explained by naturalistic processes, or you can no longer exclude non-naturalistic processes from any given point.
Back to my assertion that ID is a scientific theory. In my words, ID says this: “It is possible to determine whether an object is the result of natural, non-directed processes, or the result of intelligent design and directed processes, by measuring the complexity of the entity”.
Interestingly enough, ID isn’t necessarily or even essentially about life, or origins. If ID didn’t carry implications for Neo-Darwinian Evolution, the same scientists who are so frenetic to discredit it now would probably applaud the science/math behind it. Basically, all ID says is that design requires a designer - and that it is possible to measure/detect design. Unfortunately for both Evolution and ID, life appears designed. So - either Materialistic Evolution which says life is undesigned is wrong, or ID which says that design requires a designer is wrong. Neither side would disagree that Life appears designed.
So - where do we, and will we, see resolution? What predictions does ID make that differentiate it from Evolution? One such would be “Junk”, or undesigned elements to life. For some time, it was believed that most (upwards of 90%) of human DNA was unnecessary - remnants of the random evolutionary process. This would certainly imply ID was wrong - why would a designer put worthless elements in the base code of life? Current scientific thought is, however, that DNA is not only not mostly “junk”, but almost entirely functional (even if non-coding). Now evolutionists may (and have) argue that Darwinian processes have filtered out the worthless DNA (evolution is ultimately flexible - everything can be explained, and therefore nothing is), but ID theory is clearly supported by the findings.
As for the argument that no scientists use ID theory - nonsense. Ever hear of Biomimetics? Scientists use the Design they find in life to help them improve our technology. This is inherently relevant to ID - you wouldn’t copy the design of something that wasn’t designed, would you?
I’m a YEC, myself, so I have a dog in this fight only so far as I certainly see the design of life as evidence for a designer. And, as a YEC’er, let me give you some scientific predictions using my Theory of origins.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain the ultimate Fudge Factor.
1) Abiogenesis will not be solved. Scientists will never be able to “create life”, even using intelligent intervention in a lab
2) Within the next 10 years, DNA will be found in more fossilized remains of creatures supposedly 100’s of millions of years old.
3) No experimental process will ever be able to mutate a species beyond a certain boundary (years of experiments with mutated bacteria will result only in - a mutated version of recognizably the same bacteria, not a new type of bacteria).
4) Increased research will increase our understanding of the complexity of life, and find complexity that we don’t currently recognize (e.g. the light pathways recently found in human’s “inverted” retina)
5) Gene sequence comparisons and molecular phylogenies will only further muddy the “tree of life”
6) SETI remains a colossal waste of time and effort
7) Improvements in technology will allow new telescopes to take pictures of “20Billion-year-old” galaxies, in our “14Byo” universe.
9) Evolution Research will remain mired in “just-so-stories” and gene sequence comparisons, because any interesting experimentation that might prove evolution possible (as opposed to “true” which is not possible with a historical science) lead to dead ends (e.g. Miller’s OOL experiment).
9) We’ll still be having these same conversations, with noone’s opinions much changed.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Mr. Stein,
It’s clear the evolutionists posting here are laying awake at night in frustration because of you.
A smart guy who refuses to believe!? How dare you!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Evilution aka sheer dumb luck is what you liberals cling two. I see in the kitzmiller trial that the ACLU were helping the evilutionists.
The same ACLU who stopped these marines praying hear:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/off-topic-from-a-dear-friend-of-mine/
Its criminal, they want to take god out of the schools. Just look around at the many theocracies of teh world to sea what we’re missing.
If you liberals think you are all so smart, then.
Q) what is the strongest force in teh universe?
A) Grabity. I bet you didn’t know that! well, I do and I didn’t even go to college. So don’t think you’re smarter becuase of you’re schooling.
Sgt. Dave Springer Scott. (t-Ard)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I am suprised by the vitrolic responses. Why not just watch the movie and then make up your minds?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Reynold Hall responded:
Why no, I haven’t. Is it in this thread, or part of this documentary? If not, then it has nothing to do with my observation about the comments to this thread about this as-yet unseen documentary.
LOL! “Putz,” eh? Wow. Sounds like that Dembski fellow is quite the potty-mouth.
From your citation it appears she has no problem defending herself from apparent “parody.” Which I also don’t care about.
I don’t get the impression from this site that the documentary it exists to promote is about whether ID is right or wrong. It looks to be about the declared “culture war” and what that actually looks like. I imagine PZ, Dawkins, Eugenie and all others interviewed provided plenty of useful material, since they apparently believed the film would be THEIR propaganda vehicle. And they now feel burned because they think the focus changed.
If it changed. I am not convinced this isn’t edgy comedy of the “Borat” variety, where the subjects make asses out of themselves and most people get a good laugh at their expense. I am also not convinced PZ isn’t contributing requisite “controversy” for the film on purpose. No one here will see it for another 6 months - if it’s ever seen at all - but so far the absurdity factor alone is quite amusing.
No, thanks. I don’t care what AiG or ICR believe. Nor do I care about what the wedgies believe. They have as much right to their beliefs as you and I have. The comedy springs from the sheer irony of this ‘Dueling Wannabe Mind-Tyrants’ production number. This film might be hilarious, judging from the warm-up I see here.
Then what’s your problem? Lighten up. Your beliefs are in no danger from ID or from me.
Dunno. I wasn’t involved in the Dover Trial. I heard they lost, ID was declared “creationism,” and now it’s officially unconstitutional to teach ID (or even mention it) in public high schools. The NDS camp wanted it that way and got their wish. At the university level the students are adults and the teachers are supposedly operating under the umbrella of “academic freedom” so they can challenge previous knowledge and beliefs to promote critical thinking.
I’d say the reactionism on display here demonstrates some serious insecurity, despite the win at Dover. PZ knew the film was about science v. religion, on the specific issue of NDS v. ID. He also knows what he said during the interview (knowing very well only a few answers to questions could be used even though the filming took hours). I don’t suspect he said anything he didn’t mean.
Love the Rush Limbaugh impersonation. “You people” are such fun. Can’t wait to see the movie. It should be BETTER than Borat!
You go, Ben!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I find it astoundingly amusing reading the posts from religious stalwarts fuming at the veracity of evolution. These folks fail to even understand the basic science, yet they are compelled by their fragile beliefs to rail at whole idea. Yet these same stalwarts see no problem with metaphysical apparitions speaking stuff into existence and believing that two of everything floated around in a big boat. By the way, which person had syphillis?
As for Stein’s opus of twaddle, there is a very good reason why his “mistreated scientists” are seen as such. They propose bull sterco as science. When the reality of their bull sterco is exposed by science and their “scientific” motivation is exposed as being based exclusively on religious objections, it makes Stein’s little film rather silly.
It’s sad to see an intellectual celebrity reduced to shoveling hog swallop for a pay check.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Uh, oh. Didn’t close a tag, so that post will be deleted. I’ll try again…
Reynold Hall responded:
Why no, I haven’t. Is it in this thread, or part of this documentary? If not, then it has nothing to do with my observation about the comments to this thread about this as-yet unseen documentary.
LOL! “Putz,” eh? Wow. Sounds like that Dembski fellow is quite the potty-mouth.
From your citation it appears she has no problem defending herself from apparent “parody.” Which I also don’t care about.
I don’t get the impression from this site that the documentary it exists to promote is about whether ID is right or wrong. It looks to be about the declared “culture war” and what that actually looks like. I imagine PZ, Dawkins, Eugenie and all others interviewed provided plenty of useful material, since they apparently believed the film would be THEIR propaganda vehicle. And they now feel burned because they think the focus changed.
If it changed. I am not convinced this isn’t edgy comedy of the “Borat” variety, where the subjects make asses out of themselves and most people get a good laugh at their expense. I am also not convinced PZ isn’t contributing requisite “controversy” for the film on purpose. No one here will see it for another 6 months - if it’s ever seen at all - but so far the absurdity factor alone is quite amusing.
No, thanks. I don’t care what AiG or ICR believe. Nor do I care about what the wedgies believe. They have as much right to their beliefs as you and I have. The comedy springs from the sheer irony of this ‘Dueling Wannabe Mind-Tyrants’ production number. This film might be hilarious, judging from the warm-up I see here.
Then what’s your problem? Lighten up. Your beliefs are in no danger from ID or from me.
Dunno. I wasn’t involved in the Dover Trial. I heard they lost, ID was declared “creationism,” and now it’s officially unconstitutional to teach ID (or even mention it) in public high schools. The NDS camp wanted it that way and got their wish. At the university level the students are adults and the teachers are supposedly operating under the umbrella of “academic freedom” so they can challenge previous knowledge and beliefs to promote critical thinking.
I’d say the reactionism on display here demonstrates some serious insecurity, despite the win at Dover. PZ knew the film was about science v. religion, on the specific issue of NDS v. ID. He also knows what he said during the interview (knowing very well only a few answers to questions could be used even though the filming took hours). I don’t suspect he said anything he didn’t mean.
Love the Rush Limbaugh impersonation. “You people” are such fun. Can’t wait to see the movie. It should be BETTER than Borat!
You go, Ben!
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Freedom For All Said: “The inability of these atheists to accept any other explanation for their existence is out of the question, regardless of evidence offered.”
Craig said “It’s already been mentioned many, many times that not everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist.”
Never said all people who believe in evolution are atheists. But I’ll bet ya 99% of the people posting here are!!!
“They constantly talk about “who designed the designer” like it is the final nail in the coffin of ID theory”
Craig Said “Well, then, who designed the designer?”
Good one. I think I heard that somewhere before. A. Who designed the designer is only necessary if you think that it is necessary to have the facts on how we get from a rock to a place where evolution can even start. Why doesn’t a lack of information on abiogenesis mean evolution must be false. Is it not fruit of the poisonous tree? Would you look at Mount Rushmore and say “I won’t believe some man carved that stone unless you tell me his name?”
“while their own evolutionary theory has no plausible beginning theory. Random mutation and natural selection requires a life form with the ability to reproduce and pass that genetic information on. How you get from a rock to this first life is huge.”
Craig said “Two things here: The actual origins of life (abiogeneis) is separate from evolution. Evolution doesn’t care how life got started, only that it did. And second, we *do* have some promising ideas on how it all got started. You don’t need to start with full-up DNA.
Evolution doesn’t care, because if it did, it would be dead in its tracks. Wow, that was an easy way out of that one. We just don’t care. Promising ideas are a long way from fact. The canyon still exists. Claiming evolution as fact without a beginning point is ridiculous
Macroevolution is a theory full of holes that is being blindly promoted because of its philosophical value. Not it’s scientific value.
“If you actually had the facts to back up your position, you would do it that way.”
Craig said “We have seen and continue to see evolution happen. We have even seen speciation occur. We have lots of facts. “
You see microevolution. I believe in microevolution too. Quoted from a pro evolution website “The problem with trying to observe speciation is that it usually does not occur within the lifetime of a scientist, but since bacteria have such short generations, sometimes as short as 20 minutes, there is potential for actually observing speciation. The problem is that strict bacterial speciation has not occurred.”
Galapagos finches were listed as a sign of speciation. Since the finch beaks returned to normal length after the draught, there was no net change. Even if we give you that one, changing beak sizes is a far cry from changing species. If you don’t need DNA to transfer genetic information, what do you need? You don’t need anything because you have already signed off on the end result. You have accepted an idea without the data to back it up.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Wow! The “howler monkeys” sure have jumped on this one, displaying the truth of the film’s premise, even as they demonstrate their failure to understand the real message. I see one naive person still thinks it is valid to claim that the Bible says pi=3, which not only has nothing to do with this film, but has been refuted by mathematicians who don’t even have any interest in defending the Bible.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
expecting a believer in ID to conduct research without bias and teach at the university level is like asking a shaman to perform surgery and teach medical school
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Following site has much to say about ID & Evolution.
http://www.reasons.org/
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
As I read most of the comments by those who obviously reject ID I am saddened. It is almost like they all get their talking points from the same place. And THEY talk about thinking for themselves! The issue is not between ID and evolution (Or natural Selection), which is what the evolutionists try to make it sound like, and many ID people allow, but it is an issue of presuppositions. The real issue is between Philosophical Naturalism or materialism or what ever name one calls it and ID. When one frames the debate as between evolution and ID it is made to sound like the ID person does not use science. There are some ID people that believe in evolution. The evidence has led them to believe that something must have designed the process. Evolutionary Scientists have a death grip hold upon keeping Science and Naturalism synonymous. Once the two presuppositions are seen for what they are then we can focus on where Science takes us.
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Why does the evolution debate have to attract such knot heads to it? It’s the ultimate proof that most of these monkeys are still barely conscious as indicated by their ramblings.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Mr. Stein,
I’ve read your letter, but not the (currently 280) comments posted thus far, so I am sure my response echoes some comments.
I’ve always admired your acting. I have even admired your political and social commentary, even though I’ve often disagreed with it. So it is with some sadness that I find you associated with this project.
Intelligent Design, naught but a misnomer for biblical creationism in new clothes, is imbecility masked in religion. It is the last gasp of Biblical literalism. The convergence of so many branches of science — evo-devo, genetics, chemisty, astronomy, physics, and many more — is awe-inspiring. We understand more about the world than ever before, and it is breathtaking as humanity begins to grasp its origins. Intelligent Design seeks nothing more than to put an end to this awesome pace of discovery. It seeks to end it so that the mystical and mythical ruminations of Bronze Age Middle Eastern peoples will not be up-ended.
Your political leanings are different than my own. No problem. That is something about which reasonable minds can differ. However, your willful association with the morons (I use that word knowingly) of Intelligent Design saddens me.
I hope you reconsider your association with these people. They may share your socio-political ideology, but rest-assured they are imbeciles. For your own sake don’t align yourself with them.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am
It seems I was wrong.
Even when the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research, no projects were submitted.
OK , ID proponents do not do research and do not even have any research projects planned, but why should that stop ID being taught in schools?
August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Which textbooks have been expelled, and why?
Let us see the Darwinists come up with rationalisations why high-quality books like ‘Of Pandas and People’ should be forbidden to our children.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:35 am
“There is one God, the Father, ever-living, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ…” Isaac Newton
August 24th, 2007 at 1:06 am
blech.
its all about the benjamin, isnt it?
you talking head, keep your opinions to yourself. i equate you with ever other dumb quasi famous entity who cashes in by selling their opinion about some matter of the times. blechhh! i used to think you were a lot cooler.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:11 am
According to an informal study by the late Dr. Gould, half of all biologists he surveyed believed in God.
The scientists you mentioned are all physicists… and I believe most physicists believe in God, in one way or another, since they find rules in the universe that things run by.
Anyways, if you take the Bible literally, I find intelligent design as heretical as Darwinism. Stick with the Earth as we know it being formed in 6 days if you take the Bible literally.
That being said, I am a Darwinist because the assumptions that come out of it can be useful to mankind. Science is just a bunch of information, with theories that try to explain trends that are found; you need to engineer something useful with it to benefit mankind. Darwinism makes rat and monkey models of human disease acceptable and logical, as it is unethical to experiment on humans against their will.
Can literal creationism or intelligent design do that?
Don’t forget science is only a tool to make our lives easier. We will never know the whole story of anything; that is something only God knows.
The Tyranny of the Majority is what this nation is all about. If you dislike our democratic way to getting grant money for projects, I suggest you tell your scientists to move to some more authoritarian nation.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:40 am
In the context of 1 Kings 7:23, rounding off would be acceptable.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Andrew:
“Every scientist alive agrees that living things have the appearance of design. Believing that Darwinism’s random processes are responsible for every last detail, rather than a designer, is the dogma that must be embraced.”
And you are a scientist in the field who knows all about it? Or did you just make that up, or hear it from some anti-scientific religious organization?
“What if a scientist claims evidence that Darwinism may not be powerful enough to accomplish some aspect of the complexity of life - that perhaps the engineering in the cell, that human engineers learn from, actually had an engineer. - Heresy!”
You can keep claiming evidence until your head falls off. Produce the actual evidence, don’t just talk about what-ifs!
You creationists are all talk, but no substance. Where is all your evidence? Where is all the actual research? Where are all the peer reviewed reports?
August 24th, 2007 at 1:53 am
A few points:
1) Ben Stein is getting paid. Probably well. Like Morgan Freeman talking about penguins, baby… you don’t have to “believe it,” you just have to “push it.” Like Visine… wow.
2) This is an open blog. The intarwebs are pretty well known as a bastion of ID “haters,” and as such, I believe that all the well-meaning arguments against ID and the Fundamentalists that support it will only serve as propagandist fuel for the real audience. Bible belt mega-church-going Walmartians will eat this stuff up, plus they can throw a “no hate like librul hate” in there for their amusement.
3) So, don’t hold it against Ben… I’d shill for this sorry excuse for propaganda too if I were famous and paid a LOT. And don’t feed the freepers… they eat enough.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I can’t believe that anyone, much less most of the posters of comments here, would disagree with Ben Stein (actually, most of you have transformed Ben’s thesis into something else entirely).
Ben is NOT arguing for Creationism. He IS arguing that people that believe in Creationism should not be discriminated against. And you people are disagreeing with him? You think it is OK to have a litmus test for your personal belief on the question of evolution or intelligent design?
Doesn’t anyone actually think anymore? Or do they just have programmed reactions to keywords. “He said Intelligent Design, I have to disagree with that because I believe in evolution”. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.
And what is even sadder is that most of you won’t even understand this message and will misinterpret what I said.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Let us be reminded that if god-magic is accepted as a suitable basis for paleontological science, then we must also believe voodoo to be “contraversial new theory” repressed by an entrenched anti-chicken-guts elite.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:39 am
What I find interesting is that, for all their crowing about how they ‘do SO have lots of research projects ready to go’, and they ‘do SO have lots of evidence for ID’, And ‘Big Science is SO trying to keep them from publishing’, none of the pro-ID side has managed to link to a SINGLE piece of actual scientific evidence to support their position. Not one paper on PubMed, not one article in any reputable, peer-reviewed science journal, NOTHING.
I’ve seen a few, ‘I was making a list of pro-ID articles/scientists/studies, but I decided not to post it.’ - but that’s EXACTLY what the pro-evolution people said the IDists would do. Lots of bluff, lots of wailing about persecution, but not a shred of honest-to-god DATA or SCIENCE from a single one of them.
On the other hand, the pro-evolution side has linked to studies, court cases, lists of answers to all the old pro-creationism canards, etc. Got a specific question? Ask it, and watch those who understand the scientific method pop right up with a detailed answer.
Which side is being disingenious here? I followed the court case in Dover from its beginning. I watched daily as the pro-ID side were exposed as liars, charlatans, and pro-religion creationists hiding behind a fancy new name. I watched their spokespeople fumble on the witness stand, watched them admit that for ID to be called ’science’, the rules of science would have to be changed/relaxed to the point that ASTROLOGY would also qualify as ’science’. I watched them handwave away STACKS of studies, books, and papers *that they hadn’t even read* as ‘not sufficient evidence’ - and watched them get caught time and again in blatant lies. They’ve been unable yet to produce a single study that agrees with their premise. Why should I believe them now?
It’s simply amazing how many of the pro-ID side posting here can’t keep their story straight. If it’s NOT about God and religion, how come so many people here are spouting off about ‘Evil Atheists’ and bringing God back where He belongs?
If the pro-science people show up here in force and demand real evidence, they’re called sheep, and their requests for ANY actual science are completely ignored. How convenient!
Just from reading these responses, it’s obvious who is thinking and who is reacting, which side understands the scientific method, and which side is grasping at any straw in an attempt to legitemize themselves without ever doing the work required to do so.
You want me to believe that ID is science, that it could be a possible explanation that answers as many questions and fits as much of the evidence as the Theory of Evolution does? Show me the Science! Show me you even understand what Science IS!
And they wonder why pro-science people get so bent out of shape when someone puts up something like this? Mayyybe it’s because otherwise the IDiots might delude well-meaning but ignorant people into believing their unsubstantiated tripe?
Notice that not one pro-ID person has refuted any link or study given here by the pro-evolution, pro-science side. Telling, isn’t it?
It certainly is to me.
Ermine
August 24th, 2007 at 2:49 am
There seem to be numerous comments along these lines:
Interesting how the apologists for academic orthodoxy have distinguished themselves in this very blog thread as being the inquisition witch-hunters the documentary aims to expose.
Apparently I missed the part where the pro-evolution folks started suppressing dissent, since I see lots of it here and elsewhere.
For future reference: when someone disagrees with your position and vocalizes it, you’re not being oppressed. You’re being argued with. Taking the martyr’s pose at the first sign of criticism makes you sound like a whiner.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Aren’t you a little old for an imaginary friend?
August 24th, 2007 at 3:16 am
That reel of Nixon saying “I am not a crook” will forever invalidate anything you ever write or say.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:22 am
…Hi, I’m Ben Stein. I’m not a smart guy, I just play one on television.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:34 am
So glad you have started this. Those of us who believe that the Spaghetti Monster controls everything in the universe find it hard to keep faculty positions. You will support our freedom to have research grants regardless of whether we do real science or not! Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou!
August 24th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Ben,
I used to really admire you, but now… This is really stupid!!
August 24th, 2007 at 4:18 am
At least you got the “intelligence not allowed” part right.
Goodbye
August 24th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Torbjorn Larsson, OM @ 174 wrote:
“can you tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”?”
Well, Torbjorn, it’s called “methodological naturalism”, and I have no problems with that as long as it’s being used only as a framework for both experimental or observational practice, and reasoning about the results of experiments, or observations, in the work of discovering generalisable explanations for repeatable events occurring in the natural world. That, BTW, is what I think science is.
Macroevolutionary theorists aren’t trying do that, just as doctors and police detectives aren’t trying do that. Doctors’ work is to try to identify the cause of a particular person’s illness. Police detectives’ work is to try to determine whether or not a crime has occurred and, if so, to identify the perpetrator of each particular crime. Macroevolutionary theorists’ work is to try to discover what could have caused life to originate and diversify. In each case the reasoning about the particular event that happened in the past is informed by the results of work done by real scientists on processes occurring in the present.
But here’s the thing. Imagine how hard it would be for a doctor to correctly diagnose and treat an illness if he or she had an a priori commitment to the belief, say, that all illnesses involving fever are caused by the sufferer’s hot-tempered nature. Or imagine how hard it would be for a police detective to determine, say, that a child was killed by his or her mother if the detective had an a priori belief that mothers never kill their children.
Macroevolutionary theorists (by the very nature of their business) have an a priori commitment to the belief that life originated and diversified by purely natural processes that occur spontaneously. That is, the completely defensible idea that methodological naturalism is the proper framework within which real scientists should study events that are repeatedly occurring in the present, and reason about their results, has been expanded, illegitimately, to include the notion that theories about the causes of historical events must be consistent with metaphysical naturalism or they cannot be considered “scientific”. (See Dover.)
This is why certain intellectual elites keep saying that Jesus only swooned on the cross, or that the disciples were lying, or that everyone who said they saw Jesus after the resurrection was caught up in a mass hysteria, and so on and so forth, despite evidence to the contrary (which, of course, has been dicovered by real scientists studying events that occur repeatedly in the present).
The proper methods for judging the truth or falsity of claims about historical events are those that are (used to be?) used in courts of law. The question that needs to be answered about historical events is, “What is the truth of the matter?” It is not, “Does this answer comply metaphysical naturalism?”
So doctors try to diagnose an illness in order to treat it. Police detectives try to identify a criminal in order to bring him or her to justice. Macroevolutionary theorists interpret all evidences naturalistically in order to support the idea that metaphysical naturalism is true.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Yes, the over the top comments coming from neo-Darwinists would be almost amusing and ‘oh my’ aren’t they all proving the point. By the way, they forget that even Dawkins was aware that there is an ‘appearance of design’. Design is what is evident so why would it need to be a theory. There are only a few movies a year that are really worth watching and this one looks like one that will be on my list!
You go buy!
August 24th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Noyatin…Excellent posting!… Well pointed out. My first thought was that the Discovery Institute et al could be of assistance but in view of their serious lack of funding even for current I D research projects I don`t think its feasable. Where IS Steven Carr when needed?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Ben,
Leave science to the scientists. You’re obviously way out of your depth.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Thanks Ben for this project! Much needed. I searched the page for posts about the Rick Sternberg affair and only found Ed Brayton’s pro-Darwinist piece. So I think readers of this blog should hear the other side. Here’s an excerpt from the U.S. House of Representatives Investigation … Read the rest of the excerpt at my blog … http://afdave.wordpress.com
August 24th, 2007 at 7:32 am
As a Jew, I have to say don’t pay attention to this man. He’s ridiculous.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Ben,
I guess I fall into the category of what might be considered the religious right, in that I’m a Christian and a republican. But evidence is evidence. God doesn’t mess with our minds. Evolution is an uncontroversial underpinning of biological reality as gravity is of physics. Evolution does not impinge on abiogenesis, and does not need to be suppressed in support of faith. Jesus does not need us to lie in his name, and God does not require us to obscure his works. While there are different ways of approaching truth, claiming that black is white because admitting that white is white might set some sort of bad precedent is foolish and mendacious.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:55 am
IT IS SAID, “IF YOU THROW A ROCK INTO A PACK OF DOGS, THE ONE THAT YELPS IS THE ONE YOU HIT.”
BUT HOW CAN ONE ROCK CAUSE THIS MUCH YELPING?
THIS MOVIE MUST BE ONE BBBBBBBIG ROCK.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:01 am
ROFL, Steven Carr finally replied with this. I see we have someone greater then Colbert at satire now:
# Steven Carr Says:
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am
It seems I was wrong.
Even when the Templeton Foundation offered to fund ID research, no projects were submitted.
OK , ID proponents do not do research and do not even have any research projects planned, but why should that stop ID being taught in schools?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:10 am
“ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo”
Can’t wait to see the evidence for ID produced…. First person to get some, get’s a Nobel Prize and could probably become Pope if they wished. Any takers? Thought not.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Holy backfire batman!
Ben, I’ve always seen you on TV and thought you were a smart, respectable guy. Obviously, this is not the case.
ID is nothing but a bunch of fanatical people assuming something. And what do they say about assuming? You make an ass out of you and me. Stick with politics and economics, science is a little above you and your religious nuts.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:19 am
“I’m baffled. Those who’ve come here to support ID or creationism as scientific theories make repeated claims that these ‘theories’:
• Offer testable, falsifiable hypotheses
• Make testable predictions”
I must say that I’m also quite baffled. How is it that the Darwinists, claiming to be so “rational” and “unbiased,” accuse ID theory of being untestable? When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested. And that amazing “fossil record” with all the gaps! “Well, we’ve been doing quite a lot of digging and can’t find fossils to fill these holes. But we must maintain our commitment to most holy Darwin…so…punctuated equilibrium!”
Ben, I, as many others on this blog, have been a fan of your work for a long time. When I was a youngster I was first introduced to you through “The Mask”; I loved your performance! Now, as a college student who refuses to sit back and be indoctrinated like most of the lemmings here, my respect for you has grown even more.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Open Minded
ID can be taught in Schools, just put it in the Religious Education class with the rest if the mumbo-jumbo and bronze age mythology.
It has no place in a Science class, because there is no scientific evidence to support the thesis of ID.
The first person to produce peer reviewed evidence of ID will win the Nobel Prize (probably Physics, Chemistry and Physiology / Medicine all in one go) and change the course of human history on a global scale. All of us atheists would be quaking in our boots because the wrath of God would be real instead of imaginary.
If that is not a motivator for some “intellegent” person to go and find some evidence of ID I don’t know what is.
He or She would be invited to speak and give real science lectures at Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, not just some backwoods school biology class in the US.
So far ID proponents have produced zip, nothing, nil, nowt. Not one itsy bitsy teeny weeny scrap of evidence.
Forgive me if I don’t hold my breath whilst we await the first piece of evidence supporting ID.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
David your ignorance of evolution is glaring.
“I must say that I’m also quite baffled. How is it that the Darwinists, claiming to be so “rational” and “unbiased,” accuse ID theory of being untestable? When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested. And that amazing “fossil record” with all the gaps! “Well, we’ve been doing quite a lot of digging and can’t find fossils to fill these holes. But we must maintain our commitment to most holy Darwin…so…punctuated equilibrium!””
Please research how a fossil is formed. Do you truly expect every last species thats ever existed from microbes to insects to plant life, to large scale animals like you and I to leave behind EVERY SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL? No. And no scientist is remotely afraid to admit that. However this doesn’t change the fact that YES we do have steady lines of numerous species going through enough micro evolution to equal MACRO if you juxtapose two fossils from far ends of that spectrum.
I want you to really think about you’re claiming as a lack of evidence. EVERY single species, in every environment ever, successfully leaving behind a fossil over the course of 4 billion years. That’s simple impossible given several of the environments they grow up in. Regardless since 1859 the fossils we do find support natural selection and just because you can’t find a fossil connecting a certain kind of beetle doesn’t mean “the designer” stroked some untestable magic into it.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Ben -
Say it ain’t true. I have to assume this is some sort of absurdest post and that Expelled will actually be an outing of ID.
What the heck happened to the brilliant economist I love to read in the NYT?
If nothing else, collect and read all the posts supporting ID in the replies. They speak for themselves. Consider what happens to the United States if ID becomes mainstream. If you think we have problems maintaining a technology edge over other countries, you haven’t seen *anything* yet…
Remember, Darwin has a posse…
www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/evolk12/posse/chazhasaposse.htm
Regards,
Paul
August 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
David
The reason fossils will never fill all the gaps is because geological conditions have to be right to enable fossilisation to take place.
Over 4.5 billion years, the “camera” of the fossil record only fired it’s shutter at various times in various locations. What happened in between was never captured in the first place so cannot be found.
Go do your homework before making an assertion.
Evolution has been seen and studied in the laboratory, maybe not with complex mammals changing species I grant you, but at a bacterial and molecular level definately.
If you hand around for another few million years I’m sure you’ll see some!!
August 24th, 2007 at 8:39 am
To Jose:
221 & 222 - Read “Why Darwin Matters” by Michael Shermer for a great description of proof of evolution, testing of evolutionary theory, and the misuse of the term “Missing link.”
August 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Ben,
the school uniform is ironically suitable. Usually it youth who “discover” an issue and declare their undying preparedness to fight, without actually having a grasp of the issues. Almost everything you say is a non-sequitur. I look forward to the day you get to try out your incredible arguments against someone who actually has a clue, instead of making pompous speeches to fawning audiences of christians. Failing that, I hope you learn some philosophy of science, some biology, and some of the real history of this debate. The only “freedom” christians are fighting for here is the freedom to assert that aspects of their religion have been scientifically proved when they haven’t, and to make this assertion without pedantic scientists dismissing arguments known to be wrong. And as much as you want to believe there is a chasm between worldviews, this is pretty much all the philosophy of science is - the gradual removal of wrong stuff. What you don’t understand about science culture is that ANYBODY who insists on some theory without paying due deference to people who can be expected to offer a reasonable critique become scorned and ostracised. Most scientists have had a humiliating butt kicking at some stage, and if you spent some time you’d find that consequently most scientists are extremely deferential in proposing a disagreement, in a way that isolated self-congratulatory christian-audience-lecturing ID proponents tend not to be. But if you don’t want to deal with people who can tell your assertions are false, I guess you have to fight for the freedom to assert wrong facts to children. If all these arguments about suppression of freedom are true, why don’t people take it to court. Oh I forgot … they do. They crow and crow about how scientific arguments are so bad, if they can ever get those scoundrels in court they’ll mop the floor with them. Then they lose. Say goodbye to the honorable world of being simply a man of faith, Ben, and welcome to the world of religious crackpots fighting the tide of reality. Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
August 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Right On!
Evolutionists have been shoving their religion down our throats for more then a century. It’s about time they got exposed and expelled.
Evolutionism is not science, science is not evolutionism. Evolutionism is a dogamtic religion badly disguised as science.
Go for it Ben!!!!!
August 24th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Your documentary is highly anticipated Ben. Sounds like it will be spot-on in shedding light on the hatred and vitriol exhibited by the anti-God posters on this blog and in the scientific community in general. I agree, it is an incredible display of politically correct bigotry foisted against honest inquiry.
However it is not unique in history. Have you ever read the book, “The 5 Equations that Changed History”? I read it a few years ago and one thing that emerged from that compilation of mini-bios of the rock stars of science is that every one of them suffered severe distain from mentors, colleagues, and the scientific community in general for their contrary opinions. We ID Neanderthals are not unique in history for being ostracized by the established ‘truths’.
Some angry bloggers here ask for proof if ID. They claim we have NOTHING to base our witchcraft upon. I submit they are working from emotion rather than rational thought. ID has several rock-solid, foundational scientific principles on its side. I know the other side will throw up a deluge of high sounding arguments ‘proving’ I am wrong but that doesn’t change the facts that these principles DEMAND an intelligent designer. I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I’m glad they are there or I couldn’t do my job!!
1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.
Again, there will be a storm of inordinately angry rebuttals to this list (calm discussion of them on a scientific level is not allowed by the other side) but since they are laws, the rebuttals always sound kind of silly don’t you think?
August 24th, 2007 at 9:05 am
“Blah blah, blah blah blah blah…” - Tom Aquines
August 24th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Unfortunately for Design peeps, Intelligent Design fails when analyzed scientifically. It’s predictions do not hold true, and, as an explanation for life in all its myriad, changing forms, it is far less parsimonous (a word Ben would love) than evolution.
Evolution is very solid. If this contradicts your religion (your theory of reality), then your religion (your theory) is wrong, or you must modify it.
That is intellectual honesty.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I read a powerful bookm which is os in sync with what ben is writing. The book, Adults Only: Trednsetting Spirituality for the 21st Century (www.thebookforadults.com), by bioethicist, IC Fingerer, definitvely proves based on objective science the fact that we are not evolved primates but a higher species endowed with sublime souls. It also proves, in the section, atheism discombobulated, that true science conclusively demonstrates that there is a Creator. Then this brilliant and creative book delves into moral philosophy and human sexuality.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I read Adults Only and corroborate that it is the one book which should be sold along side Ben Stein’s new movie. It’s a great read and propoganda free.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Hehe.
Why is it the most strident haters of Darwin and evolution seem to be creationists?
Something they freely admit is based soley on the bible and faith.
Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.
But never do. They rarely can show they even understand what the theory is.
They bring up random chance. (While a factor, is not the sole driver of evolution)
They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)
They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)
They say mircoevolution happens but not macro. (failing to notice that the mechanisms for both are the same)
They don’t even agree on the age of the earth. 6,000? 10,000? Billions?
We know you want “GOD DID IT” to be the answer to everything.
But that really doesn’t function as scientific hypothesis.
Try again.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Ben, you have lost your mind.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Why was PZ Myers interviewed under false pretenses for this film?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1559,Im-gonna-be-a-MOVIE-STAR,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula
August 24th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Ben, what is your next documentary?
Is it about persecution of flat earth scientists ?
August 24th, 2007 at 10:32 am
[…] ben stein begins his own blog to promote his new documentary expelled: no intelligence allowed by proposing that “In […]
August 24th, 2007 at 10:42 am
The reason intelligent design continues is that no matter how hard big science and big media spread their philosophy many people are just not buying the ocean front property in Iowa. You’ve got to have proof to sustain a scientific theory, but evolutionists offer up more of the same tired and half baked “facts” and mix in it with a lot of bullying. Truth ultimately prevails. The closer it get’s the louder they scream. I love it.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Jeff (#348), please let me calmy and politely state that talkorigins.org very calmly and politely uses scientific principles to refute your arguments.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I find it funny when theist are saying that they are being expelled for their beliefs when one of the greatest scientist of our time, Ken Miller who is a devout Christian and believes in Intelligent Design and Creationism. The difference is that he knows that Intelligent Design and Creationism is not science but religion.
Even though Science and Religion are Philosophies. science is not one of the supernatural. Intelligent design is just that, bringing in the supernatural. That’s an oxymoron to science.
And Newton discoveries was limited by his faith. Watch Neil De Grass Beyond Belief video.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Dave Mc Said: “Blah blah, blah blah blah blah…” - Tom Aquines.
Dave Mc is an atheist dressed up as an intellectually bankrupt blogger.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism.”
Thomas Sowell.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I feel this is just a knee-jerk reaction to critisisism. Please don’t hate, masturbate!
August 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
No one will probably read this, being the 360th post. Heck, I didn’t even have the time to read them all, but I must say, that while I am in complete opposition to the idea of intelligent design (if it was so intelligent, why can’t we substitute body parts on a whim, like swapping out hard drives in a computer?), however, Mr. Ben Stein has always seemed to be a pretty decent person. Regardless whether you side with his beliefs or not, there’s no reason to treat his beliefs with disrespect. I have no belief in a personal god whatsoever, but one of my best friends believes in quite the opposite, yet we can discuss the issue like two civil adults who respect each other.
Kind regards,
Sean
August 24th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Neil deGrasse Tyson from Beyond Belief 2006
“Even though you’re brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops. It just stops. You’re kind of no good anymore for advancing that frontier. Waiting for someone else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain, and says that’s a really cool problem and they come in and solve it.”
August 24th, 2007 at 11:04 am
There is an article here:
http://www.TheBrites.org
that proposes academics and religious people should be “separate but equal.”
It worked during the first half of the twentieth century in America and there is no reason it can’t work now.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:08 am
As soon as an Intelligent Design proponent provides a falsifiable and predictive hypothesis, it will be considered. Even assuming that every one of the ID proponents’ criticisms of evolution were accurate, they would still be lacking an actual hypothesis.
Until this happens, it is rightly categorized as a purely religious or philosophical view and should be described in schools as such.
This is not discrimination. It is honesty.
That said, if anyone is being unfairly discriminated against for their thoughts, then those doing the discriminating should be held accountable.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:16 am
GO BEN!
I understand what you are doing. Kick ass and take names!@
August 24th, 2007 at 11:25 am
To the above poster SteveBratt and others of the same mind-frame:
“Ben & All, (if you get down this far)
Let me start by saying that I am a scientist (EEbackground working in Info Tech) who completely believes in God and believes basically in what ID says (the world is too complex to have evolved by random chance alone). I Do NOT agree, however, that it means ID should be taught in ANY public education system, where evolution should be. What evolution explains is HOW we evolved. What ID and other ‘creationist’ theories explain is WHY we evolved. It is as simple as that. There is scientific evidence to support HOW we evolved, and that is what public schools should teach as part of their science curriculum. If you want to insure that your children also learn your views, or any other views on WHY we evolved, you have ample opportunity to teach them at home or send them to the private school of your choice. ID is just a label and methodology to make creationism sound more ’sciency’ to try to force it into science curriculum, but that doen’t change the basic distinction made above. To keep wasting everyone’s time/money and energy trying to force this into the public education system instead of using those resources to solve the thousads of other REAL problems we have facing our society is misguided and self serving to everyome else’s detriment!!!”
The problem is that evolution isnt merely factual observation. Its an entire system of reasoning masked with the term ‘hypothesis’ that literally attempts to explain away a biblical creation and ultimately a God.
When you lend yourself to that worldview, i am telling you that any self-honest objective person who reads and studies Genesis and the bible and thinks about the implications of how evolution conflicts with areas of scripture will absolutely reject one or the other.
So even if you’re attempting to keep an attitude of forced religious BELIEF out of school, im telling you that you are only offering a viewpoint that leads people away from God or a belief in the bible. If it isnt taught, it isnt understood. If it isnt understood and it’s regarded as non-applicable in life, people will not apply it. If people do not apply it, they will strengthen in the ambition to disprove it. The implications of not teaching opposing viewpoints that involve the possibility of God in school is farther reaching than most realize.
To those who follow Hugh Ross and other old earth creation theories, I would respectfully disagree with you. You arent looking at all the evidence objectively, and you certainly arent reading Genesis as its written. You dont tailor clearly non-metaphorical passages to fit a pre-existing assumption - if you’re going to read the bible and believe that it is divinely inspired then believe that God isnt going to write something thats completely deceptive. It wouldnt have been hard for God to clearly explain the process of evolution to Moses (if God so chose to use that process). Christ would not (in the NT) have said something like “at the BEGINNING of creation i made them male and female” if it was actually only 40,000 years ago in the full supposed 4.56 billion year span of earths existence. Respectfully, i’ve heard all the Hugh Ross arguments and they are completely fabricated on hermeneutical falacies. EVEN SO, i would gladly welcome an open teaching of all his ideas alongside the creationist ideas and the atheistic interpretations.
The truth of the matter is that we are only portraying the empirical science in one light - and that light is built on a FAITH that evolution is the cause of our existence and God is irrelevent.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Some Questions…
Why does Talk.origins.com link to web pages with opposing views, while none of the creationism/id web pages extend the same courtesy?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#creationism
Why is creationism/id being contested in courts and movies while the one organization that offered to fund grants for creationism/id science sit waiting for their first proposal, and a quarterly journal devoted to the true science behind creationism/id has gone unpublished since 2005, yet they claim to be using the scientific method? (see comments above)
Why do creationism/id proponents call scientists “atheists/communists/Nazis”?
(see comments above for proof)
Why do creationism/id proponents use arguments that other creationism/id proponents admit are false arguments?
http://northeastflorida.humanists.net/strayer004.html
Please, explain these observations to me?
August 24th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Ermine said:
Notice that not one Darwin-Defender has figured out that this film isn’t about who’s scientifically right or wrong. Thus simply asserting and re-asserting Neodarwinian beliefs doesn’t affect the premise of the film one bit. The film is about anti-religious bigotry, violation of the civil rights of scientists who don’t toe the orthodox line, and the vanishing concept of academic freedom.
Stein says very clearly right there in the blog post atop this page that:
Now, it seems implicit that at least one of the anti-religious dogmatists interviewed for this film actually expressed this position. I’d guess PZ Myers (since he has advocated this position on his blog, and has also called for denial of degrees to students who show signs of such beliefs).
This isn’t a prejudice PZ kept secret from the world, thus he has absolutely no credibility for the claim that he was “tricked” into saying it in front of the film crew. The whole “They told me I’d be the good guy!” whine is ridiculous. He wanted to play in the broader sociopolitical sandbox, and this is it. It’s way too late to begin worrying that his authoritarian pretensions and intemperate hate speech might not appear so noble to the larger public.
So he sent his acolytes over here the moment this blog appeared to do the usual schoolyard bully act, thereby confirming the premise of the film (as currently advertised). He can’t change what he said and no amount of surrogate whining from his fan club will alter a single word. He can’t sue (cashed check, signed contract, currently poor position due to a different lawsuit he exposed his sponsors to via immoderate speech).
Y’all might consider that if this film is released and does well in theaters, it’ll be time to stand behind your statements and positions as if you really meant them. This isn’t the same thing as selling books to the choir or selling yourself to like-minded groups as a motivational speaker. This is the “popular culture” on which you declared war. Turning into chicken-hawks at this point is a total cop-out.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:30 am
David at #340 wrote, “When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested.”
There’s a primer on prediction and testing in science and specifically in evolution here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html#evidence
…and some details of a few outcomes of that prediction and testing here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html
Peruse that and come back with a question that shows an elementary understanding of science, prediction and testing. Not all science involves laboratory tests. Do you believe in a sun-centered solar system? Was that tested in a laboratory?
August 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The “thesis statement” of the documentary is rather clearly stated on the web site for the movie…more interesting, it seems to be proven on this blog. : 0
August 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Neal #358 what are you talking about?
Evolution is a fact, Darwinian natural selection is the theory thats been steadfast since 1859. So yes truth is prevailing, for 150 years.
Why are you people trying to bring back the scopes trial of 1925! It was ignorant then and it’s still ignorant now.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Jeff, is dishonest:
1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
SLoT says: “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” Not what you said. At T=0, most physical laws break down.
There is no “Law of entropy”
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
Is this evolution of abiogenesis? Do you know the difference? Does Evolution require spontaneous generation? No, that would be CREATIONISM.
3. The law of irreducible complexity…. THERE IS NO SUCH “LAW”
4. The law of information…. THERE IS NO SUCH “LAW”
You might want to use the “law of misinformation” in the future.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Homo habilis and Homo erectus are brothers after all. Oops! Now what do we do. It’s time for another baseless evolutionary fairytale.
I love the anthropologists. Here’s a quote from the press release on the two Homo brothers above, “Like chimps and gorillas, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.” How smart these people are that they would know how these people behaved towards one another because of a few bones they dug up. You know it might that chimps don’t hang with gorillas because gorillas are much bigger than them and could pound them into little fur balls if they felt like it. But I’m no anthropologist.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
To tgb1000 (#359)
Please let me (sic) calmy and politely state that writers like Jonathan Wells, William A. Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip Johnson and Guillermo Gonzalez very calmly and politely uses scientific principles to refute YOUR arguments.
BUT!
They have been eXpelled. Hence the movie.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I love you Ben!
August 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“Evolution does not need to be suppressed in support of faith”
Where is it being suppressed? What is being suppressed now is criticism of evolution. What Darwin skeptics are now experiencing is symptomatic of an entire scientific establishment that is in the process of abandoning the bedrock precept of academic freedom in favor of political correctness and the defense of orthodoxy. In general Darwinists are not people who want to know what is true about evolution. On the contrary, they are people who want to impose their own ideas about evolution (and a bunch of other things) on society. And they will not hesitate to ruin anyone’s reputation, career, or life work in the process. I continue to be astonished at the viciousness of the anti-ID zealots. They seemed not to care how they appear to anyone with an open mind or anyone who has a shred of respect for honest academic work. I am appalled by their tactics and have concluded after much study that they are one of the biggest threats to democracy and freedom of thought today. They are modern intellectual brownshirts.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“# BobRyan Says:
August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.”
Please elucidate this alternative once and for all.
Also I like how not being religious is a religion, and being in a religion is a religion. Basically no matter what you do, by your fatuous logic, you’re religious and faithful no matter what.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
To Steve C:
“Hehe.
Why is it the most strident haters of Darwin and evolution seem to be creationists?”
A. Because many of us also understand that the bible says Christ is the only way to heaven.
B. Because we understand that evolutionists ignore a lot of things.
C. Because we understand that evolutionists are actively working to flush God and Christianity out of life.
“Something they freely admit is based soley on the bible and faith.”
Interestingly enough the bible also says that we live and die by faith. You couldnt beleive in evolution if you did not have faith. You werent there. So the two faiths you hold to are 1. you’re smart enough to KNOW everything (except a few token things which you select not to know only because they are irrelevant to the manner in which you prefer to shape your world view) and 2. You know what happened in ancient history despite not having been there.
“Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.
But never do.”
You know. This is rediculous. Guys like Robert Gentry still have outstanding challenges and pleads in to TV networks and scientific organizations to air a live public primetime debate between creationists and evolutionists and the ones refusing to do it ARENT the creationists, theyre the evolutionists and the organizations that support them.
“They rarely can show they even understand what the theory is.”
Blablabla. My guess is you (like most evolutionists) don’t actually know how Creationists interpret the empirical science (except that they believe in the bibles account of creation). So perhaps you could state some facts that creationists ‘have no argument for’ and we’ll see if i have one.
“They bring up random chance. (While a factor, is not the sole driver of evolution)”
If random chance doesnt drive non-intelligently guided processes then what does?
“They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)”
Psst. The outside influence that the earth recieves is RANDOM. No intelligent process guides radiation or meteor strikes or whatever else you like.
“They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)”
Lol. Its not that we don’t understand the process evolutionists claim it took for the eye to evolve. Its that we recognize how rediculous it is and how it is completely uncorroborated by what we actually observe.
“They say mircoevolution happens but not macro. (failing to notice that the mechanisms for both are the same)”
My gosh. How many more atheists will i run into that do not understand the difference…… OK. LET ME CLARIFY: Start with DNA that encompasses all the genetic attributes of humanity mixed into the original 184 chromosomes of those on Noahs ark. Eliminate ancestral information from each new generation of people and you end up with different looking humans (or dogs or cats or whatever else you like - intersetingly enough they are all able to breed together): This is micro evolution.
Start with no genetic information and randomly build up more and more complex chromosomes that code for new attributes as vast amounts of time passes: this is macro-evolution.
“They don’t even agree on the age of the earth. 6,000? 10,000? Billions?”
Creationists believe in 6,000. I dont know who believes in 10,000 - not many learned Christians as chronology is laid out clearly in the bible. Obviously billions is wrong.
“We know you want “GOD DID IT” to be the answer to everything.”
And we know you don’t.
“But that really doesn’t function as scientific hypothesis.
Try again.”
So let me get this straight. We tell you that there is a God that exists outside the boundary of time/space/matter who created time/space/matter and because He isnt solely/regularly/readily observable by the 5 physical senses He created us with we are therefore going to declare that He does not exist. Nevermind recorded history. Nevermind supernatural occurances. They’ve never happened to you so you’re going refuse to believe its impossible that they ever will. Sounds like you are the ones limiting possibilites and banning freedom of speech and thought.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Jenny these critics have been saying the SAME THING SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN. Even before evolution it was God did it, don’t worry about the rest. Now we know otherwise, Darwin solidified that. Science has made massive leaps and bounds, you’d have to be a shut in derelict to not realize how greatly the medical community, amongst other science communities, have reached such robust and staggering accomplishments as a result of Darwin.
Again it’s not as if ID just popped up and “big science” is quickly trying to quell it. No ID theory has been around forever, real biologist just want it to either offer some provable test or take it to the religion class where it belongs.
Can you counter this with any research by ID? And don’t say they can’t afford it, the discovery institute and the Ken Ham creationism museum have MILLIONS.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Man, these “scientists” are unbearable! Please go back to your silly, meaningless labs, where you examine frogs, flies and yeast, grovel to the government for money, churn out worthless papers that nobody reads.
We should go the Universities and fire 1/3 of the faculty. Nobody would miss them.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
First of all, “Tom Harris” and “Marty Gold” are one and the same person. The first pushes a fairy tale book, and the second tries to lend it credibility.
Anywway, Jeff is confused:
Incorrect. Go back to school.
Look up the Urey-Miller experiment, which has later been confirmed. Also, “probability” is not a valid argument. How big is the probability that you are reading exactly this exactly now? TINY! So that means that you aren’t reading it? LOL! Also, random chance is not what drives evolution. CLUELESS ALERT!
There is no “law of irreducible complexity”. IC is just a new name for interlocking complexity, a part of evolution
Straw man. Cluelessness. Read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html
“This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes”
“Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.”
You are clueless, like all other IDers.
They are not laws, but clueless, wrong claims by an anti-scientist.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
370, jb:
“The whole “They told me I’d be the good guy!” whine is ridiculous.”
I agree, jb, and that’s why PZ isn’t using it. The argument is that what he said will be taken out of context, mixed around, and suited to make his statements appear degrading when they are not.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Jenny, you play the victim. It does not suit you. Come back when you have some scientific studies to point to. You are part of the conservative establishment. Don’t pretend to be an underdog or rebel. It’s a lie.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Tom Aquines:
Actually, while they may use “calm” arguments, their arguments are still unscientific and wrong. Sorry to have to destroy the lie you are living
August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.
If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?
It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth’s history.
That’s what we’re “censoring,” of course, a “theory” that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory “can fit” with the lack of predictions about their “designer”. Of course it can, because the IDists haven’t said anything substantial at all.
Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It’s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it’s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
August 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Ben,
I’m a young earth creationist(YEC),but I’d like to give you a billion years worth of thanks.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
Really? their thinking is checked?
Millions are thinking about a Creator every sunday, in church!
Your piece is so full of lies!
August 24th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
wScott #390
The earth is 4.5billion years old, you say 6,000-10,000 do you realize how disingenuous that is? Someone is wrong, there is no middle answer, and the staggering facts don’t mount on your side. Not only that but ID in a way has to accept 4.5billion year earth, to throw god into the gaps of those fossils without a succinct and linear history, so even BEN doesn’t agree with your view.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
#279 Osama Bin Laden Says: I love you Ben!
G. Finch says: I love your biting satire Osama! All fundamentalists are dangerous! We especially have to watch out for those unpredictable Amish.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Open Minded said “The earth is 4.5billion years old, you say 6,000-10,000 do you realize how disingenuous that is? Someone is wrong, there is no middle answer, and the staggering facts don’t mount on your side. Not only that but ID in a way has to accept 4.5billion year earth, to throw god into the gaps of those fossils without a succinct and linear history, so even BEN doesn’t agree with your view.”
OM, you have just proved that ID is not the same as creationism. Please pass this along to your dense Darwinist supporters.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I commend Ben Stein for running a blog which allows all comments, presumably within certain reasonable rules of dialog. We’re really not used to this from pro-ID spokespersons.
And I do hope that Ben interviewed Dembski, whose own blog is the opposite of open, having expelled nearly all critics of ID. Indeed, this was done recently in the discussions about this movie on Uncommon Descent, Bill Dembski’s blog. See Dembski expel the inconvenient critic here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/randy-olson-plugs-ben-steins-expelled/#comment-133745
You have to scroll up to see what “Rocket” had said that “merited” this censorship.
Meanwhile, Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula remain open to virtually all comments, except for the truly trollish ones. It is rare that Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova avail themselves (the rest of the DI tribe do not at all, even if Dembski did in the past) of such openness, generally preferring (or so I have to assume) the secret conversations held by highly restricted net groups. I only know about these latter because a former member of one, David Heddle, tired of the limits of discussion enforced by that group, and complained publicly as he was ousted for disagreeing with them. Heddle’s a good source to look up on the web as a critic of ID censorship, who still sympathizes with cosmological ID (probably biological as well, but he doesn’t discuss it much, if ever).
Okay, so forums are open to the IDists, they just don’t use them much. Forums are closed to us (Dembski’s blog kicks us off piecemeal), so that ID doesn’t have to face sound criticisms.
Any chance that Stein will cover these important details, if not in the movie, at least in a future blog?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
August 24th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
#288 Ceven Starr Says: Actually, while they may use “calm” arguments, their arguments are still unscientific and wrong. Sorry to have to destroy the lie you are living.
Tom responds with a quote:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled…”
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
A lecture by Michael Crichton at California Institute of Technology (2003)
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/index.html
August 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I think a lot of you all are missing the point here. It’s not a question of whether Darwinism or Intelligent Design is right or wrong. It’s that in today’s scientific culture, you’re not even allowed to ask the question. To even entertain the possibility that a “God” (however you choose to define it) may have been involved in creation, to even point out any of the acknowledged flaws in Darwinism, is a one-way ticket out of the good graces of the Scientific Establishment.
Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere. Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers. That is the issue at hand.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Open minded #374. To coin an old phrase, “There you go again”. Natural selection is one of those half-baked “facts”. Evolutionists are like the guy who comes back with his target after visiting the shooting range and proudly displays his 3 bulls-eye’s. “I’m a professional marksmen”, he says. What he fails to say is that it took him 100 rounds to get the 3 bulls-eye’s. Real science looks at all the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the facts.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“My gosh. How many more atheists will i run into that do not understand the difference…… OK. LET ME CLARIFY: Start with DNA that encompasses all the genetic attributes of humanity mixed into the original 184 chromosomes of those on Noahs ark. Eliminate ancestral information from each new generation of people and you end up with different looking humans (or dogs or cats or whatever else you like - intersetingly enough they are all able to breed together): This is micro evolution.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!
NO WAY! You believe the fable of Noah’s Ark! That’s your genetic theory for everyone and every animal on the planet?!
AHHHHHHHHHHHH! HAHAHAHAHA.
OH man. That’s so good.
Genius.
Someone has been drinking the Hovind/Ham kool-aid.
hehe.
Wow. Welcome to the dark ages. The bible is literally true.
Damn, you’re a deluded godbot.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Glen Davidson #389. You wrote, “It looks as though known mechanisms might”… that’s how you could sum up nearly every article on evolution. Glen, can you tell me one thing that you know for sure about evolution?
August 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hey David.
Most of us aren’t scientists.
We’re just not ignorant godbots.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
“I look forward to the movie, because, the most troubling aspect that I’ve seen in my investigation is the lack of open-mindedness, especially on the evolutionary side.”
Really? I’d be more concerned with the complete lack of a single piece of evidence for ID/Creationism. However, anyone with a functioning brain knows that those who want to ‘debate’ ID rest all their laurels on side issues, semantics, and trying to victimize themselves since they have no basis for fact in their debate.
I hope that this movie is a joke and is not actually being made with Mr. Stein’s support. Otherwise, I think it will be his ‘Macaca Moment’ and he will soon be another shill for the Discovery Institute.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Jasonx10 said:
“A. Because many of us also understand that the bible says Christ is the only way to heaven.
B. Because we understand that evolutionists ignore a lot of things.
C. Because we understand that evolutionists are actively working to flush God and Christianity out of life.”
A. Why should we accept the Christian version of the creation story and not, say, the Hindu version, or any of the Native American versions?
B. Please name something that “evolutionists” (which is a silly word) have overlooked.
C. This is simply not true.
“Interestingly enough the bible also says that we live and die by faith. You couldnt beleive in evolution if you did not have faith. You werent there.”
There’s a difference in having faith in something because the evidence suggests it’s true and having faith in something on purely religious grounds.
“You know. This is rediculous. Guys like Robert Gentry still have outstanding challenges and pleads in to TV networks and scientific organizations to air a live public primetime debate between creationists and evolutionists and the ones refusing to do it ARENT the creationists, theyre the evolutionists and the organizations that support them.”
This is because these debates usually never get anywhere and often end up with the creationists ignoring the science and just attacking the other side for being atheists (even if they’re not). All the real debate about creationism and evolution took place long, long ago, and creationism lost.
“So perhaps you could state some facts that creationists ‘have no argument for’ and we’ll see if i have one.”
Why do some whales and snakes have vestigial hip bones?
“If random chance doesnt drive non-intelligently guided processes then what does?”
Mutations in an organisms genetic code are random; however, *selection* (natural or otherwise) is not. The members of a species that survive are the ones that are better adapted to their environment.
“Its that we recognize how rediculous it is and how it is completely uncorroborated by what we actually observe.”
Why is it ridiculous?
“This is micro evolution; this is macro-evolution.”
I don’t think any biologist would agree with your definitions.
“Obviously billions is wrong.”
Then why does every single dating method used end up with approximately the same age? What about light from stars that are more than 6000 light years away? Did God create the light already on the way here? Why did He deliberately make it look like the universe is billions of years old? Is He trying to trick us?
“And we know you don’t.”
Well, yes, because it explains nothing. Why do we get sick? God does it. What causes tornadoes? God makes them. If we just accepted “God did it” as an answer, we’d still be living in caves, if we ever got that far.
“So let me get this straight. We tell you that there is a God that exists outside the boundary of time/space/matter who created time/space/matter and because He isnt solely/regularly/readily observable by the 5 physical senses He created us with we are therefore going to declare that He does not exist.”
No, “we” are going to declare that there’s no point in speculating on His existence or non-existence. Either He influences the universe is some detectable way, in which case He’s removed from the supernatural down to the natural so no we can do some research; or he influences the universe in some NON-detectable way, in which case there’s no way we can investigate His actions.
“Nevermind recorded history. Nevermind supernatural occurances. They’ve never happened to you so you’re going refuse to believe its impossible that they ever will. ”
Examples please? Outside of the Bible I mean.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“Creationists, of course, can’t stand the fact that science has prevailed over magical thinking, and that, as a result, we teach science and not magic to our children. They want equal time for unscientific appeals to supernaturalism. Moreover, they want their acceptance of magic to receive the same respect that rigorous scientific discourse receives.
…”
http://positiveliberty.com/2007/07/all-epistemologies-are-not-created-equal.html#more-2603
August 24th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
David said: “When was the last time evolution from one species to another was tested in a laboratory? Oh wait, that can’t be tested.”
But it can (and has).
Read these links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
August 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Methinks yon movie sucketh! And don’t ever mention my name again.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),
Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.
You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.
Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.
Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.
We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it’s core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences… yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.
So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
This controversy is over materialism, more than religion. One doesn’t have to be religious to question random mutation and natural selection as an explanation of life.
Materialism in this context is not about an obsession with money. Nor is it about the existence or non existence of God. It concerns a definition of reality. Materialists see the universe, including living organisms, as consisting of nothing more than purposeless matter in motion — a complex machine lacking any intelligence or volition. We non materialists see subjective choice (free will) and intelligent causation (intelligent design) as non supernatural aspects of reality. Only a committed materialist would question the reality of free will in humans and other mammals. However some materialist do just that, claiming that free will is an illusion, that what we mistake for rational free choice is nothing more than mechanical, deterministic interactions of the brain.
Many materialists are atheists, and many non materialists are religious, attributing everything to God. However theism is not the only alternative to materialism. Panpsychism, for instance, proposes that free-will, subjective choice, has always been a basic ingredient of reality. The “laws” of nature are merely entrenched habits of a spontaneous, volitional, creative reality. “Laws” concerning inanimate matter are habits so entrenched that deviations cannot be detected by existing measuring methods (except perhaps at the quantum level). Living organisms, on the other hand, all retain some limited ability to respond creatively and purposefully. Living organisms can be easily observed overriding habits, instincts and “laws“ of nature, The universe is an intelligent democracy in the process of designing itself. The “design” of inanimate matter may be pretty entrenched by this time, but living organisms are still to some extent a design in process.
At the moment the materialists seem to be in control of academia, and they are not shy about wielding their power to silence non materialistic views. They harass and deny tenure to scientists who question materialism. Some materialists go so far as to claim materialism is the only permissible “scientific” view of reality, and they have persuaded a court to prohibit theories involving free will and intelligent causation from being considered in biology classrooms. I doubt an overwhelming majority of the public would define themselves as materialists if they gave the matter serious consideration. In any case, I’m confident that only a few in our society are so intolerant as to condone banning conflicting views from consideration.
Freud, Marx and Darwin have often been named as the three materialists of the 20th Century. Marxism is in decline. Darwinism is being hotly debated. Freud suggested that our thoughts were a mechanical process, over which we have little control. Few people still accept the Freudian notion that faulty parenting cause autism, mental illness or homosexuality. However some people still argue that ‘thinking’ is nothing more than mechanical brain interactions and chemical reactions.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
You know, before a miracle is officially declared a miracle, it is put through rigorous scientific examination to determine if some natural process actually accomplished the supposed miracle? Only once natural processes are ruled out is it declared a miracle.
Now, I recently read a book entitled ‘The Fabric of the Cosmos’ by Brian Greene. This book covers a staggering amount of cosmology, and also String Theory. One of the questions that Greene tries to tackle is why time’s arrow only operates in one direction. Almost all the laws of physics still make perfect sense if you run time backwards. The only one that doesn’t, is the Law of Entropy. Entropy is always increasing in a reaction, which means that entropy in the past must be smaller than in the future. However, physic, cosmology, even String Theory cannot explain why this is so, and believe me they have tried!
Another thing that amuses me about String Theory is that it is beautiful math whose equations can solve certain problems in quantum models of the universe, but it is utterly incapable of making any predictions that can be tested. In fact, whereas the standard model for the cosmos involves a beginning point, a ‘first cause’ if you will, to borrow a term from St. Aquinas, String Theory returns cosmology to having no definable beginning. They posit that the Big Bang occurred when two branes collided, an event they suggest repeats every few trillion to quadrillion years. What this means is that there is no more first cause, but an infinite chain of causes, which St. Aquinas demonstrated was logically impossible.
Now, this is not discussing evolution per se. But I think it does demonstrate something fundamental. It is an example of where science begins to fail. We can accomplish so much, and we can describe so much through science, but we will still be left with unanswerable questions.
I do not subscribe to a God of the Gaps theory. However, I also recognize the limit of man’s cognitive and sensory abilities. And we cannot learn about God merely by our senses, as Dawkins and his ilk would have us do. That is kind of the point! While He does offer us physical signs that we can perceive with our senses, it was not of our own effort that these were accomplished. They were revealed to us by God! Hence, the Christian religion will always be one of the revealed God, and why that, as it stands, is exactly as reason would dictate He was going to be.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Freedom For All said: “Good one. I think I heard that somewhere before. A. Who designed the designer is only necessary if you think that it is necessary to have the facts on how we get from a rock to a place where evolution can even start.”
I don’t understand what you mean. The point of the “Who designed the designer” question is to illustrate that by proposing that some higher power designed life, you haven’t really solved anything; you’ve just pushed the question back one level. There are three ways out. One is that there is an infinite regress of designers designing designers. The second is that you can arbitrarily define the designer as being special and eternal, but that leads to the question of why you need to have a special designer when you could just take the third option — that the laws of physics and chemistry eventually built a molecule that could reproduce itself, and natural selection took over from there.
“Why doesn’t a lack of information on abiogenesis mean evolution must be false.”
Because, as I said, it doesn’t matter to evolution at all how life got started.
“Evolution doesn’t care, because if it did, it would be dead in its tracks. Wow, that was an easy way out of that one. We just don’t care.”
I honestly don’t understand why you have difficulty with this. Whether God created the first life, or the Earth was seeded by aliens, or life started on it’s own, evolution would still occur.
“Claiming evolution as fact without a beginning point is ridiculous”
The trouble is the word “evolution” is often used somewhat sloppily. Depending on how it’s used it can mean different things. “Evolution”, in the sense that the genetic makeup of a population of organisms changes over time, is an undeniable fact. “Evolution”, in the sense of a scientific explanation of how the changes occur, is a theory.
“Quoted from a pro evolution website “The problem with trying to observe speciation is that it usually does not occur within the lifetime of a scientist, but since bacteria have such short generations, sometimes as short as 20 minutes, there is potential for actually observing speciation. The problem is that strict bacterial speciation has not occurred.”
Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
And more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
“Even if we give you that one, changing beak sizes is a far cry from changing species.”
If two populations of organisms don’t mate with each other, they are different species. This happened with the finches.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Ben,
You better watch out for the Flying Spagetti Monster. His tenticles wil ensnare you and then you will feel the true power of belief…
August 24th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I have read many of the replies to this opening Blog and felt I must reply to those people. I applaud Ben Stein for finally standing up and fighting back against a pack of lies that has destroyed the scientific community and our classrooms. Darwinism is one of the biggest scientific jokes ever conceived by man. Many of the greatest “proofs” used to show it as so-called truth have been forgeries in the name of eliminating God from all aspects of life. Darwinism is so far from being concrete that it is merely laughable. Anyone with just a little bit of time on their hands could do the adequate research on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design and come to the realization that at best, Darwinism exists on shaky ground, or at worst it is scientific hogwash. Most who laugh at the Intelligent Design theory have little actual knowledge of the idea, and even less knowledge of the numerous holes, gaps, and enourmous unanswered questions left by the Darwinism theory.
I find it equally humorous that there are many people already denouncing the movie a full six months before it is released. That’s a great open-minded approach, very typical of those wishing to silence those supporting Intelligent Design. As for me, I’ll hold off on my opinion of the movie until I see it; a novel idea. I’ll see if I consider it a success or not.
God Bless America.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Until you embrace the Flying Spagetti Monster, your words are useless. Follow me to Pastfarianism and worship the only true God. Let his noodley tenticles wrap warmly around you!
August 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
The reason they don’t teach ID or Creationism in Science because it’s the same as trying to teach that 1 + 1 = 3 in a Math Class.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
JasonX10
“They bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (pssst. earth isn’t a closed system)”
Psst. The outside influence that the earth recieves is RANDOM. No intelligent process guides radiation or meteor strikes or whatever else you like.
“They bring up complex systems. (failing to study the research on how complex systems evolove. the eye being a well studied one they claim is too perfect to arise from evolution, which is completely ridiculous)”
————-
Wow. I propose a challenge. Go outside during the day. There is an outside energy source you have apparently never noticed. Look up, you will see it. It is called the sun.
I am continually shocked at how many creationists have never noticed the sun before. You’d think it’s a little too noticeable to overlook.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
mynym said: “Except when people use the term evolution to describe all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos.”
But no biologist would do that.
“Now I suppose “Evolution” is just about a sentient being…. why just the other day Evolution told me that it was about to naturally select something for me.”
I was waxing poetic. If I were talking about gravity I might have said, “Gravity doesn’t care if you’re a human or a rock; you’re still going to hit the ground just as hard.”
“Translation: “Even among those of us who make rules allowing us to cite our imaginations as naturalistic evidence (naturally enough), the origin of life is still a problem.”
Of course it’s a problem. Science doesn’t pretend to know all the answers. The way we figure things out is by poking at the problems. Einstein came up with relativity by thinking about problems with Newtonian mechanics. The point it that we have some ideas about how life might have gotten started, and research is continuing.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
The ID arguement is a logical fallacy playground. If you can’t even make an valid arguement. What hope in hell do ya have to actually do some real science. ID is like 3rd grade logic mixed with sunday school theology. I dont care how many propaganda films you guys put out, bullshit is still bullshit.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Keep on proving Mr. Stein right gentlemen.
Blind dogma and ad hominem do not make you right.
I am not a proponant of Intelligent Design, but the farcial stranglehold moribund scientists have over real scientific study is a disgrace.
They have brainwwashed a generation to avoid true critical thinking and mock and dismiss instead of observe and refute with evidence.
Overall what I see here is several hundred posts of “Oh Yeah? Well your stoopid so shut up!” which is about on par with what Eugenie Scott usually has to offer in her daily witchunt to exterminate any ideas or theories different than her pet religion of Darwinian Evolution.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Collin said:
PZ was ONE of many people interviewed for this project. He stated in his blog that his interview - for which he was paid $1200 and signed a contract - lasted “several” hours.
Now, how stupid would you have to be to believe that a 90-120 minute documentary film featuring so many people is going to use 2-3 hours of film of YOU answering questions and opining about the sub-human status of your ideological opponents? I do not believe for a millisecond that PZ Myers was ever led to believe this movie would consist entirely of his interview start-to-finish. Unless he’s a bigger idiot (and a bigger megalomaniac) than any IDer out there.
OF COURSE the producers would use only those answers and opinions they feel best illustrate his position per the subject of the film. The same is true for Eugenie, Dawkins, Sternberg, Gonzales, and everybody else who was interviewed. PZ’s whining sounds like those frat boys who tried to sue the ‘Borat’ producers for using their racist jokes and slurs without telling them they might come across as bigoted assholes.
Now, you can try to claim that whatever PZ is shown to say in the film was pieced together from disparate responses, but you certainly don’t know that since you haven’t seen the film. So you’d be lying. Nor would I believe that the producers would need to alter a single word he said or invent things for him to say. He’s already famous for the exact position Stein highlighted in his blog.
His whining suggests that he only said what he said because he thought the film would be HIS propaganda vehicle. That is very amusing as a lead in to the PR campaign for this film, as is the fact that he’s deployed the peanut gallery here to run an offensive defense on his behalf. He needs to buck up and act like a man who isn’t afraid or ashamed of his own words, opinions, positions and prejudices. Because I have a sneaking suspicion they’ll figure prominently in the documentary’s theme.
If he can’t do that much, now’s a good time to apologize in public for being such an incontinent jerk. Say he never really meant it, go on back to teaching biology 101 and lay low for the next 6 months. As Dawkins would say - er, has said - Shut up.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Rob … pathetic … ’nuff said
August 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
For Ben Stein to believe that there is a god that acts in nature is a matter of faith. For Ben Stein to know, in the sense of being able to prove, that there is such a god is hubris; just as the assertion that there is no such god is hubris also. Whatever is divine is beyond the ken of man, for that we should be happy. To assert that we fully understand creation either by a wave of god’s hand or the slow creep of evolution is to over state the powers of the human intellect.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Ben,
After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:
1) None.
A prediction: After it’s released, your movie will be harshly attacked by people who haven’t seen it. In my experience, most critics of ID don’t (and won’t) allow their opinions of it to be molested by any actual knowledge of it.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I’m distress to see that Ben has the relationship between science and persecution in reverse. It is the religious right that is persecuting scientists; scientists pursue the truth, wherever that pursuit takes us.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Jim says:
:After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:
1) None.”
I’ve read all of Dembski’s work, some Hoyle if he counts.
Is your point that because they have no THEORY, they’re not THEORISTS?
August 24th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
It would be a real treat to actually read a serious article on evolution that actually proves something substantial about the evolution of complex life to more complex life forms and organs. I have found it interesting to count the number of words like “maybe”, “if”, “assume”, “could”, “might”,
“possibly”, etc that are in the evolutionary articles.
An interesting exercise is to take an article on evolution and strip away the bold title, and all the sentences that contain these speculative words, and any sentences that are derogatory toward intelligent design and creation. What you get is usually a very small article that can be summed up as “we don’t really know what we’re talking about”.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
One more thing to take out of evolutionary articles is the flaky artistic concepts and graphics that are based more on speculation than on solid evidence.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Dark Jedi, I think you’ve misunderstood how entropy relates to the universe. Disorder has nothing to do with it.
For some reason people like to use The Second Law of Thermodynamics a lot, but I don’t know if they really know what’s up.
There are several equivalent statements of the Second Law that rather insightful:
1) During a process, if the system begins and ends at the same state, it is impossible that heat is completely turned into work.
2) Heat flows spontaneously from a hot object to a cold object.
3) The change in entropy is equal to the change in the heat along a reversible path divided by the temperature.
4) The entropy of an isolated system will always increase in a spontaneous process.
The last definition is essentially the one you are recalling.
The idea that entropy is disorder is not quite right and its unfortunate that this concept has been held onto so long.
Consider the case where a liquid freezes into an ordered crystal; according to the definition you give this should never happen but we know that it does — Why?
A better definition of entropy would be the definition that is common to statistical mechanics and was proposed by Boltzmann.
Entropy can be thought of as being directly related to the number of ways a system has to `arrange’ itself. Each arrangement constitutes a `microstate’ of the system.
Therefore, a system seeks to maximize the number of different arrangements or microstates.
To make this clear think of a container full of a gas. The gas is occupying a constant volume and is also at constant temperature. Within the container the molecules of gas will explore different positions. If you could stop the system at some time you would find the molecules at some fixed positions. Collectively, their positions represent one possible microstate. Now start the system back up again and stop it some later time. Once again you will (probably) find the system in a different microstate. Given enough time the system will explore all possible microstates as well as ending up in the same ones. The more microsates the system has available the higher the entropy.
So you see entropy has little to do with disorder — it’s about microstates.
Entropy will always increase because a system is the most stable when it has the most microstates — disorder is not the factor.
Matter isn’t constant; energy is constant.
Consider the case when two atoms undergo a nuclear reaction and give off energy; something similar to a nuclear bomb or a reaction in a nuclear reactor. The mass (matter) of the products is LESS than what was started with — mass has been lost! This is because the lost mass has been changed into energy.
The relationship between the mass lost and the energy produced is given by Einstein’s equation:
E=mc2.
Energy — not mass is conserved.
Additionally, here’s a helpful article about entropy with detail on micro and macro states.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_is_simple/index.html
August 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Neal.
Most biologist and scientists never talk about ID. It’s like talking about magic and gnomes.
There’s no real need.
Ah, evolution isn’t just about things becoming more complex. Anyone who actually understood what evolution means wouldn’t talk about things becoming more complex… sometimes it means becoming more blue, or bigger or smaller or softer fur or bigger feathers….
It’s amazing how many people who disregard the theory of evolution have no idea what it is.
Could someone please post the ID HYPOTHESIS. I’d like to see how it could be tested in the lab. I say hypothesis because it’s not a theory until it’s been tested and shown to have evidence to back it up and that hasn’t happened.
August 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Mr. Stein, you apparently promote the ideas of Intelligent Design in all sciences. Here, I want to point you to some important prior work in this field, done by the Re-Discovery Institute
http://www.re-discovery.org/
You might find this helpful, as this web site lists other areas
in science, where controversies rage, which are best resolved by an original designer. Not only in Biology, in all sciences, the ideas that all was designed might help stop useless investigations, and move funding to faith-based researchers.
(Apparently, currently only social faith-based organizations receive funding from the Bush administration; if one could give them, too, the money now uselessly wasted by the NIH, NSF etc.
we’d all be so much better off [in the next life, at least]).
August 24th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Someone is takin’ the piss out of the DI. hehe.
They even got the wacky, bad website design down.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
For me it’s this simple: Evolutionists propose that we all came from monkeys, or some version of that. Creationists propose that we all came from a Creator. Both have missing links and require faith. Both are a religion of sorts, both have elements of science in them - of course one more than the other because it has taken that approach. Yes, there are fossils and primates, etc.., but there are also historical writings that never mention any sort of evolution of man, NOTHING.
Evolution looks to the past, for the most part, Creationism looks to the future. One is feudal, the other hopeful. Sure, many Scientists believe in a “Higher Being” – only difference is they believe Man is becoming that Higher Being! A few Scientists mix things up for a creation/evolution explanation of things, as do some of the Creationists, but that is just a lazy way to get along.
Sure, we look like monkeys, but that doesn’t mean we do not look more like our Creator. Those of us who choose to live by faith are allowed to do so freely. Those of you that want to say there is NOT a Creator must prove entirely. In the end one side will be right. If the Evolutionists are, well, so be it…if the Creationists are…
August 24th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
All I see posted here is the typical regurgitation of athiest dogma. Thankfully you realize there is a growing number of people (including scientists, philosophers, biologists, etc.) who have come to the conclusion that this science is not “God of the gaps” science. The belief that evolution is the ONLY way we could be here is as much a faith driven belief as that of a religious individual. I look forward to seeing your film.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Steve_C, see #159 for the IDiot Hypothesis.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/axis_formation_in_spider_embry.php
hey look! science!
Some of you need to try it.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
To SteveC:
“HAHAHAHAHAHAH.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!
NO WAY! You believe the fable of Noah’s Ark! That’s your genetic theory for everyone and every animal on the planet?!
AHHHHHHHHHHHH! HAHAHAHAHA.
OH man. That’s so good.
Genius.
Someone has been drinking the Hovind/Ham kool-aid.
hehe.
Wow. Welcome to the dark ages. The bible is literally true.
Damn, you’re a deluded godbot.”
With all due respect, im the one using historical accounts combined with scientific norms - you’re the one responding with ‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAD SD YOurs O stoopID CreationIST God FanSTASY PersON’ - which is exactly why the anti-creation proffesors are so disgusted with guys like me - deep down their ‘ultra-logical scientific reasoning’ amounts to: ‘HAHAHAHAHAHAHAD SD YOurs O stoopID CreationIST God FanSTASY PersON’.
State facts and honestly sort them from presumptions. Be willing to declare what is fact and what is faith - evolution is faith - so is creation - but I believe biblical creation better fits history and science. You wanna debate me on how we observe the empirical science - go for it. You wanna smear character and throw insults - may i reccomend a elementary school playground.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
[quote]
BobRyan (Post 376) says
August 24th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Atheist darwinism is religion for those who prefer fairytales over science. Intelligent design offers an alternative to the pseudoscience story telling of darwinism.”[/quote]
[quote]OpenMinded post 383 Responds
Please elucidate this alternative once and for all.
Also I like how not being religious is a religion, and being in a religion is a religion. Basically no matter what you do, by your fatuous logic, you’re religious and faithful no matter what.
[/quote]
#1. Atheist Darwinism survives IN SPITE of good science not because of it. As the late Colin Patterson (senior Paleontologist British Museum Natural Hist) stated “Telling stories about how one thing came from another is simply story telling -not science”.
He is an example of a believer in Darwinist evolutionism IN Spite of it’s scientific failings!
The true believers in Atheist Darwinism are known for turning a blind eye to the mono-chiral problems of abiogenesis and of turning a blind eye to the differences between real science and “Story telling” in general.
#2. ID is a general statement — so much so that it embraces a form that is simply another kind of evolutionism.
The ID “general statement” is like the SETI project - it “admits” that one can “detect” a difference between natural phenomina and an intelligently directed action.
For example when people observe objects that change course (speed and direction) midflight and seem to “accomplish a task” (A bird in flight seeking food) that they “see a difference” between THAT and a leaf falling to the ground that can also change speed and direction during flight.
It is the most basic confession of “obvious fact” that the ID model embraces and braindead atheist darwinism denies.
BobRyan
August 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
[quote]A says
Mr. Stein, you apparently promote the ideas of Intelligent Design in all sciences. Here, I want to point you to some important prior work in this field, done by the Re-Discovery Institute
http://www.re-discovery.org/
You might find this helpful, as this web site lists other areas
in science, where controversies rage, which are best resolved by an original designer. Not only in Biology, in all sciences[/quote]
In the link to that bogus site You have unwittingly pointed out the flaw in your ability to objectively evaluate two positions and come to a cogent objective intelligent conclusion.
Your link demonstrates the basic failure to comprehend the opposing argument that is so characterstic of blind faith in atheist darwinism exhibited by it’s adherents — the “Darwinist faithful”.
I do not challenge your beliefs in the myths and story-telling of darwinism as a belief system. I simply ask that you not foist them onto the public as though such tactics were in fact “science” or even “genuine concern” for science.
BobRyan
August 24th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Speaking as someone who’s livelihood depends on science, this is really, truly sad. Has anybody here even read anything by Dawkins, Gould, et. al.? They have supported academic freedom forever! Even Richard Lewinton penned this which I think we should all take to heart:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.)
Oh, wait, maybe that wasn’t a good example. This one is much better…
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University - Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.)
Oops. Maybe that one is not too good either, but you get my point - people like these love for the other side to be voiced. These kinds of things are exactly what I want my kids to hear in their classes at the local university. It’s statements like these that reflect the desire for open and honest discussion in order to find truth - perfect examples of unbiased, academic freedom, absent from all preconceptions.
So maybe these were not the best examples, but I’m sure better ones exist. I mean look at Guillermo Gonzales, noted astrophysicist from Iowa State University. There is no way he’ll be denied tenure, I mean, he’s written many times the number of peer reviewed papers, is only cited more times by one other full professor in his college at ISU in other peer reviewed papers, and he doesn’t even teach ID in his classes. He is a model example of what ISU looks for in tenured professors, and a perfect example that you don’t need to believe in evolution in order to be a scientist. What? No tenure? Hmmm, must be that last point. Even more confusing is that ISU grants tenure to 91% of its applicants with far fewer credentials.
The problem with origins science is that it is by nature untestable and unobservable. Give me difinitive proof that birds evolved from reptiles. Have we seen it happen? Have we recreated it? Likewise, have we seen God create any species? Have we recreated creation in a lab? No, we have not. We do have fossils, but depending on your committment to naturalism, you’ll read them differently than me. Heck, there are even evolutionists who specialize in birds and those who specialize in reptiles who say that there is no way reptiles evolved into birds. We all look at the same fossil record, but our biases (and we all have them) determine how we view them.
Of course, you can always claim to be an unbiased observer, but really, there is no such thing.
Jeff.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
“Yet they claim they can prove that evolution is wrong.”
Cite one instance of this ever.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Neal Said -
“It would be a real treat to actually read a serious article on evolution that actually proves something substantial about the evolution of complex life to more complex life forms and organs. I have found it interesting to count the number of words like “maybe”, “if”, “assume”, “could”, “might”,
“possibly”, etc that are in the evolutionary articles.”
BobRyan said -
That is a very good point Neil. So much “what-if” and “Some-atheist-darwinists-think” gets mixed into their story telling — it is hard to fathom that anyone falls for that kind mythology in a day where real science is making so much progress.
Colin Patterson’s statement provides a good reference point for where actual science stops and “pure story-telling” takes over in the mythology of atheist darwinism.
Bobryan
August 24th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Jim:
“After reading the anti-ID diatribes above, I’m prepared to list all the books written by ID theorists that your critics have actually read. The list follows:
1) None.”
Wrong. Let me pitch in as someone who read Darwin’s Black Box. Review is here:
http://kazimskorner.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-darwins-black-box-by-michael.html
August 24th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I applaud Ben Stein for his work in raising public consciousness regarding the rank censorship practiced among atheist darwinist trying to censor freedom of thought and truncate science itself in favor of darwinist-storytelling.
What is particularly helpful in that regard is simply reading the posts given on this thread in response to Ben’s movie. Notice in this very blog the extent to which they display themsevles to be devoted adherants to the beliefs of atheist-darwinism rather than objective open-minded students of science.
Very instructive for the objective unbiased reader.
BobRyan
August 24th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
ID is not science. Science is based on rules. In a scientific world-view, a small number of simple rules leads to observed outcome through a chain of logical inference. ID effectively suspends the rules in favor of a deity that makes up the rules as the game progresses. In such a universe, the very idea of science is hopeless.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
So Lee,
Teaching 1 + 1 = 3 in a math class OK because of academic freedom?
As much you try to cover up the real issue, all you are doing is layering it with more scat.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Could someone please post the ID HYPOTHESIS.
There’s always Behe’s famous “puff of smoke” hypothesis. Something happened, through magic. We don’t need to elaborate on this, since ID isn’t a mechanistic theory and only naturalistic dogma would require that pathetic level of detail.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
See? Evolutionist are amazingly angry people. As Ben’s show apparently points out they resort to vitriolic personal attacks against the messenger rather than dealing with the message. I will grant them I am probably a particularly ignorant person but that doesn’t change the facts of the laws (I’ll call them ‘laws’ since that is in line with Stephen Hawkings definition of a theory that has not been disproved through a multitude of examinations, and am too ignorant to come up with a better noun than he did) I pointed to.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Reading through Stein’s words, I cannot seem to find where he stated his undying faith of Christian beliefs. It would be nice if someone pointed it out for me, because it seems to be a lot of what many posts here are ranting on about. Stein has not placed any support for ID or flying spaghetti monster or anything. He has simply made an observation. And in my own experience his observation rings true.
I’m glad that this blog began such an open minded discussion. A nice Socratic dialog in which the first comment is nothing but contentious accusations.
Just for the sake of adding a small amount of evidence to Stein’s argument, in my public library many book that have been published dealing with the issue of ID have been thrown out simply because they analyzed the idea. One of which was a thesis based around the calculation of the famous Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the chance of a single cell forming even in the time of 4.6 billion years was 10^39982 to 1. This was checked and supported by mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick.
My point of this little bit of talk is that this information, researched and calculated by two very distinguished and recognized individuals, was censored out of a PUBLIC library, simply because it gave ID a chance.
That is why I believe Stein is right in saying that scientific inquiry on the subject is suppressed, and not only that but information already out there, that is still proving valid, is being censored.
And when science it censored, I don’t believe it can be called science any longer.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Ben Stein,
I am very surprised that a man of your education and intelligence would build such an elaborate straw-man. Congratulations on the continued distribution of the myth that scientists are atheists who suppress religious beliefs.
The reason we don’t include our beliefs in a creator in our science is because THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Jasonx10 (comment #208):
I note that your so called theory doesn’t make definite predictions, nor present data to test those predictions on. (You mention a lot of “discoveries”, but leave no description of tests, nor references.)
You are also presenting a strawman for science. (”a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy”; wrong, see my comment #172.)
Finally, your point #5 and #6 are curious - apparently you claim that there is no predictive power in creationism, but individual interpretation and no criteria guiding you as Rob asked for. Color us unsurprised. But don’t claim that it is signs of science.
Jose (comment #221-222, 257):
Here is a primer for non-biologists summarizing the many evidences. You are also welcome to study the 100’s of 1000’s of published papers during the last 150 years.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Endurion (comment #250):
No. Science is simply based on the observation that empirical observation can be repeatable and explainable based on natural mechanisms. Science works, therefore it is.
Andrew (comment #277):
Fact: Conservatively, 99.9 % of scientists alive agrees that evolution is correct.
DI can show a list with 700 disagreeing persons, mostly non-scientists, out of 10 000’s biologists and many more scientists. Assume 500 000 scientists worldwide (~ 100 nations, 5000 scientists each) and do the numbers.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
To Rob:
In your post (#1), you list 6 questions. What would your answers be if you substituted “evolution” for “ID”?
To Steve_C (post # 427):
How has evolution been tested in the lab? What do you think is the most demonstrable, verifiable evidence backing up evolution?
August 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
It’s a good thing Ben isn’t a junior faculty member. Judging from the comments here, he’d be the one being interviewed in a movie called Expelled.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Keep on proving Mr. Stein right gentlemen.
Blind dogma and ad hominem do not make you right.
I am not a proponant of Intelligent Design, but the farcial stranglehold moribund scientists have over real scientific study is a disgrace.
They have brainwwashed a generation to avoid true critical thinking and mock and dismiss instead of observe and refute with evidence.
Overall what I see here is several hundred posts of “Oh Yeah? Well your stoopid so shut up!” which is about on par with what Eugenie Scott usually has to offer in her daily witchunt to exterminate any ideas or theories different than her pet religion of Darwinian Evolution.”
How many more stawmen can you guys come up with, every post by ID proponents is just another rehash of this fallacy ridden pile of irrelevance.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Interesting how many atheists are chiming in with the idea that even being allowed to consider the possibility of God is akin to “forcing” others to believe it.
Perhaps, friends, there isn’t any evidence because anyone who dares even consider it solely for the purpose of scientific disproof is immediately fired, won’t get published and certainly won’t get peer reviewed? I’m not fond of the idea of pushing God through science myself, but I can’t deny that the idea is currently being censored in the most vicious and fearful fashion. Not allowing the other side to even talk says something: you’re afraid. You needn’t be. If your ideas are the stronger, you’ve got nothing to fear from free speech. You should be able to produce much stronger and more resonating ideas and concepts if your idea is stronger.
I look forward to seeing Expelled.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
jb post 419:
That last post was a real whinefest itself. Could you just show us the research being done to support ID? Please. Anything.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Jacob Evilsizor (comment #285):
You are confusing the general phenomena (”common descent”) with the mechanisms that explains it.
The rest of your post is continuing this criticism of evolution, but does nothing to address the lack of science in creationism ideas or the movies claims of repressing good science.
The interested non-scientist bystander can find these old creationist talking points addressed in a readable format at An Index to Creationist Claims, with references to relevant sciences.
Dave C (comment #297):
How do you derive this prediction unambiguously from your definition? Others claim that everything is designed (no undesigned elements), perfectly designed (no “junk”), et cetera.
If you can’t derive a “prediction” from a definition, it isn’t a prediction. And the definition isn’t a theory.
The same problem applies to the rest of your list of “predictions”.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
FFA (comment #304):
See here for a primer in evolution, summarizing the evidence and with references to the original science.
Your comment is essentially an argument from ignorance, and the link will answer that.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I’m not from the USA, thankfully. I had never heard of Mr Stein before. But it has increasingly seemed to me that totalitarians like him are gaining the upper hand in US thought and politics.
ID and creationism have offered absolutely nothing to science, but they (and similar crank ideas) can triumph by legal ploys, populist ranting, and undermining the education system. They could reduce large parts of US science to nothing, like Lysenko in the USSR.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
It’s almost a law of nature…if you support some form of flim-flam (creationism, HIV-denial, global warming denial, etc.), you’re gonna claim that the intellectual establishment is locking your side out.
As a biochemist, I can say that the arguments put forward by IDers are transparently silly. Supporters of silly ideas should not be educating our children.
Very disappointed in Ben Stein.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Me is want for thank to you Ben Stein. Me is no beleeve evolushon and you is make movie so for me can understand trooth.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Michael:
Excuse me? While I’d love to chat away on this obscure blog, I do have a life and must attend to business. Couldn’t leave (looking forward to which of my predictions about this film may prove right in 6 months) without asking what the heck this is about.
My last post responded to a pseud ‘Colin’ who asserted that PZ Myer’s “argument” (which is actually just a whine, now buried on his site with comments off) is that - and I quote -
“what he said will be taken out of context, mixed around, and suited to make his statements appear degrading when they are not.”
I said if that’s his argument, it’s ridiculous. Nobody ever promised a 2-hour documentary of nothing but PZ Myers pontificating in his lab for 2 straight hours. It’s not what he signed up for and it’s not what he agreed to. Out of all that was filmed, the producers and editors will choose whatever answers to questions and/or whatever volunteered opinions they figure will best fit their theme. Same is true of every other person who was interviewed for this project - including Richard Dawkins, who hasn’t complained at all and isn’t likely to. He knows how media works.
Now PZ’s got another thread going claiming that he knows what ‘Expelled’ will feature. If he’s being honest (and not just shilling for the film’s PR company drumming up “controversy”), this movie should be a real prize-winner!
I’ve done zero whining. I’ve advised PZ (through his acolyte) to grow a spine and own his opinions or crawl back into his borrowed conch shell and lay low for the next 6 months. Looks like he’s taking that advice. As well he should, because it’s too late to back out now.
Now. You can go seeking your own ID research if you’re that curious. I don’t mind. Good-bye and good luck.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
hokeygrandma (comment #329):
Methodological naturalism is a philosophical description that may or may not be relevant for science. Specifically naturalism is defined as “all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods”.
What you are describing is called “metaphysical naturalism” (see the same link) and is another philosophy.
None of it is science, and you have yet to tell us where in biology or other sciences is there an assumption of “matter is all there is”.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
FFA (comment #377):
Whether they are species that lived at the same time or not doesn’t invalidate anthropology.
Anthropologist John Hawks refers to this argument as “Man bites dog”, since the chronology of events totally vaporizes such stupid claims:
And he goes on to discuss the Asian vs Africa controversy. (Which, btw, you don’t hear creationists propose discussing.)
And then he describes the recent redating that throw the field open:
This is what bad sensationalist journalism and creationism gives you: a fully false picture of the science. The recent find will, if it is correct, re-establish status quo. And either way, the relation between H. habilis and H. erectus is unaffected: either erectus is derived from habilis, or not.
The evolutionary tree for our Homo ancestors is as bushy as every other part of the evolutionary tree. Why would that be surprising?
August 24th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
To pro-Darwinian evolutionists . . . A human cell is more complicated than a jet engine. Take away one part and it’s not as if doesn’t work as good, it doesn’t work at all. You’re telling me that all of these parts (never mind where they came from) just got together all by themselves way back yonder.
Judging by the many anti I.D. people who have posted here, it appears that the human race is willfully ignorant and wished to remain that way.
Your rebellion is not against Ben Stein, but rather God himself. This is obvious by the blindness that has been displayed thusfar.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
OK, I have read most of the posts.
I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses.
Please, if you can, point me to those published, and/or well-documented studies that document the fallacies in the theory of evolution and demonstrate how ID or other forms of creationism provide a more solid foundation for research.
Evolution is used to develop yearly flu vaccines and is used in HIV research. Evolution is the foundational theory that underlies much of what your tax dollars support in biomedical research. It is also used by pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies as well as government-funded labs. Companies that are interested primarily in what works, what generates results, not what fits some religious worldview. And this is approach is used in every country doing productive biomedical research, not just the US.
Can any of you ID supporters identify research labs that use ID as the foundation for their work? Can you link to real findings based on this thinking? Didn’t think so.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Who needs freedom of inquiry when the explanation for everything is “my all-knowing, all-powerful buddy that lives in the sky did it”
August 24th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
If you IDists/creationists think the biological sciences give too much credence to evolution, why don’t you set up your own research labs instead of using your money to hire fancy PR firms or make Hollywood movies?
Or do you think using PR and movies is the way to do science?
August 24th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Jasonx10 (comment #382):
Natural processes are described by natural theories. They can be deterministic or probabilistic.
In biology, you see both. Common evolutionary mechanisms are variation, selection and drift. There are many more.
Selection is mainly deterministic. In most situations, variation and drift is slow and the combination with selection bumps up the evolution rate with a huge factor.
What are you babbling about? We are discussing the energy flow in and out from earth that changes entropy. The second law of TD concerns energy and entropy.
What has this to do with any “intelligent process”?
Glen Davidson (comment #395):
Agreed. This is the first time in a while that it has been possible to discuss these subjects outside science blogs, where few creationists appear.
Nice touch to bring up that subject.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Matuseio (comment #409):
You can’t get around that we will have to accept some basic theory that can’t be “explained” by anything more basic. The problem with the arrow of time in entropy isn’t the asymmetry since symmetries can be spontaneously broken, the problem is why it is broken. (Why the initial condition.) There are ideas, but none proven.
Btw, string theory isn’t a tested theory yet.
Brane collision cosmologies (ekpyrotic scenarios) aren’t unavoidable under string theory, and the current concordance cosmology makes these scenarios highly unlikely. (Greene’s book is dated.)
Btw, all these scenarios must eventually have definable beginnings (mechanisms for initial conditions) if they are to be considered complete.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Think of an animal. Any animal. Now head on over to Wikipedia for that animal’s entry. With few exceptions, you’ll find info on when and how that animal diverged from earlier species.
To build on #464, evolution is as well established in biology as gravity is in physics. Yes, there is a conspiracy….to expel shoddy thought from academia.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Eric Proph said:
“One of which was a thesis based around the calculation of the famous Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the chance of a single cell forming even in the time of 4.6 billion years was 10^39982 to 1. This was checked and supported by mathematician and Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick.”
First, Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist, so I’m not sure why his opinion on the odds would matter. Second, his argument was based on some false assumptions. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_Fallacy
And third, while Crick may have checked Hoyle’s arithmetic, but I doubt he agreed with the conclusion, since he was part of a group of scientists who told the Supreme Court in 1987 that “‘Creation-science’ simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.”
“And when science it censored, I don’t believe it can be called science any longer.”
That’s perfectly true. The trouble is that ID isn’t science.
It’s an untestable and unfalsifiable hypothesis. For example, what
objective test can you make to distinguish something that was designed
from something that wasn’t?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
At #462 Torbjorn wrote,
“Methodological naturalism is a philosophical description that may or may not be relevant for science.”
No. Methodological naturalism is the framework within which the work of science proceeds - science being defined as the search for generalisable descriptions of indefinitely repeating natural events. That is, naturalism is assumed for the purposes of the work simply because the natural world is what is being investigated.
Metaphysical naturalism is a view about the ultimate nature of all reality, i.e., that the supernatural does not exist and that matter is all there is.
You would have noticed this distinction if you had read further down on your linked page.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
#447…Hoyle’s fallacy is very easily dealt with. He assumed that primordial replicators would be similar to those now populating the planet. It’s a transparent load of bunk, and anyone who relies on that sort of logic would rightly be shut out of a career in biology. Science doesn’t work like the Oprah Winfrey show, where every viewpoint has equal merit.
Virtually all ID logic is dismissed just as easily.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
The average intelligence of those leaving comments (the mean, which includes me) is apparently very low.
I despair at the elimination of formal logic and comprehension in modern schooling.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I find it very interesting that so many people have so much negative to say about a movie they have never seen. All of the hate directed toward the once beloved Ben Stein proves his point very well. It is so easy to go from being admired to hated by simply mentioning the possibility that Neo-Darwinism may not answer all of our questions about the how of creation. One comment about the claim that the ID movement has MASSIVE funding, where do people get this idea? My single small department at the university (molecular biology) gets something like 10 times what the whole Discovery budget gets each year. They are a tiny organization with only a handful of employees and no guarantee of any money when their grants run out. We have state funds and student fees each year, and we bring in more money each year as our research progresses. My, how people like to step on the little guy.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
With all the $$$ flowing in from Christian organizations, the Discovery Institute should have labs galore, churning out interesting research. Instead…it’s a big PR machine. The very best they can offer up is Behe and his mousetraps, and Dembski’s math that doesn’t relate to real strings of DNA. Why?
August 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
All the people here who disagree with evolution should read this page first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
It has responses to a lot of common creationist criticisms of evolution. It’s pretty much everything that I’ve been trying to say here in one place (and better-written :)).
August 24th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I’m still waiting for someone to state what the ID Hypothesis is and how they propose to test it…
Anyone?
For now I’ll stick with this elegant example of evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4
We miss you Carl.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Well, Ben, you lost me. You really are a nut.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
OK, if all theories will be taught in the schools, I’d like to propose the following:
“Gravity is actually the work of invisible, undetectable rubber bands that hold us (and everything else) to the earth.”
Because these rubber bands are undetectable, there’s no way to prove or disprove the theory. Thus, according to Mr. Stein, the “rubber band theory” should be taught in schools. To not teach it would be an affront to our very ideals of Freedom!!
My next theory: Sex is good.
Bwahahaha
August 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The other day I heard that scientists who accept the Copernican view of the universe are also banned from researching their subject. What are mainstream scientists afraid of?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Okay, I agree, ID requires that we must assume there was a form of intelligence that we can not test, prove, predict or disprove. However, doesn’t materialism make the same assumption for the first spark of matter? How did it happen? Where did it come from? And, where did that first amount of matter that sparked it come from? And so on..?
Both take some amount of faith and assumption. Both are based in some amount of supernatural intervention.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
This has to be a joke, surely. Another brilliant comedy setup, perhaps?
Michael
August 24th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Steve_C #428
I haven’t met anybody in my life that denies that organisms change size, color, etc.
The conflict is not about changes like that. It’s the single cell to man explanation that begs a better explanation (not to mention how the single cell arrived.
Look, I would have stayed an evolutionist if evolutionists would have stopped saying how wonderful their theory was and instead actually presented a solid evidence for the big stuff.
For all the evolutionary biologists on the blog… why don’t you fellas just admit when there is not a credible evolutionary explanation for something instead of always saying that evolution did it, but finding the explanation is just over the next hill. Why is it that Einstein’s theory of general relatively can be tested again and again in various ways, but evolutionists are stuck on only looking at evidence that supports their various theories of evolutions?
Does big science realize that most branches of modern science were founded before Darwin? These founders should have known that they couldn’t have done real science without Darwinism, “cuz nothin’ makes sense in biology without it”. Someone please grab me a bucket, I think I’m going to…
August 24th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Richard #458
The USA is a great place to live because of our freedom. The freedom of its people to worship God and think out of the box is why Americans invented the light blub, radio, record player, airplane, etc. Our history of invention shows we have our heads on right, so before you critize why don’t you take everything out of your house and garage that was not invented in America?
August 24th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
How come every ID documentary I see proclaims the exact same things? All they are doing is proving the evolution theory substantially. Ben Stein vs Greatest minds of our time. Does he really stand any ground here? What is your credentials?
Oh yes you have a game show, played in a few movies, speech writer and republican nut. Good luck!
August 24th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Nice cop-out jb.
When are you going to grow a spine and stop being a deceitful creationist operating under the pretense that ID is real science? Come on, just show us ANY research that is/was being performed to support ID. Hell, as Steve_C asked, just give us the testable hypothesis. Please, enlighten us with your telic thoughts.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Funny how the mods wouldn’t let me say that this entire blog is just one big troll… looking for “teh hate” from the internet community.
Kinda funny, anyway.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
If you had a ludicrous point of view, and wanted to shine it up and make it appear reasonable, who would you choose for the task? How about a political speech writer? Better yet…President Nixon’s speechwriter!
August 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Testable ID hypothesis: since God is infinitely creative, we shouldn’t expect DNA sequence homologies between different species.
There, I answered your challenge, you evilutionist numbnuts!
August 24th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Neal said: “I haven’t met anybody in my life that denies that organisms change size, color, etc.”
Great! Now, here’s a followup question: if you accept that small changes occur, what’s to stop the small changes from piling up into big changes?
“Look, I would have stayed an evolutionist if evolutionists would have stopped saying how wonderful their theory was and instead actually presented a solid evidence for the big stuff.”
Here’s some.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, part 1:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Part 2:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
“but evolutionists are stuck on only looking at evidence that supports their various theories of evolutions?”
We have tested evolution in the laboratory.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Why isn’t ID taught in science class? For the same reason there’s no major in Unicorn Studies in the biology department. ID isn’t science. It’s not testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no supporting evidence.
All Stein is doing is getting a bunch of people who believe, against all empirical evidence, that life and Earth have a creator, poiting a camera at them, and having them whine about how they’re persecuted because their unfounded beliefs aren’t accepted by rational people. Grow up.
As Bill Mahr said, “You don’t have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap”
August 24th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
===============
“I think a lot of you all are missing the point here. It’s not a question of whether Darwinism or Intelligent Design is right or wrong. It’s that in today’s scientific culture, you’re not even allowed to ask the question. To even entertain the possibility that a “God” (however you choose to define it) may have been involved in creation, to even point out any of the acknowledged flaws in Darwinism, is a one-way ticket out of the good graces of the Scientific Establishment.
Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere. Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers. That is the issue at hand.”
================
Well said, but you’re spitting into the wind.
I’m hardly surprised at all the close-minded attitudes and childish attacks on Ben Stein here. If anything, they prove his point. Yes he dares to express the idea that acceptance of atheism should not be automatic, or at least that others (including - gasp - scientists) should be allowed to at least consider other possibilities. The nerve!
I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they wish - and although I may disagree, can understand and appreciate opposing viewpoints. How sad that most atheists by far (at least in my experience) cannot do the same. But again, this is hardly surprising. Narrow-mindedness, arrogance, and hypocrisy appear to be almost pre-requisites to it nowdays.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Hey Michael… Michael of “Nice cop-out jb”
Can you read Mike? Are you reading Mike? There are plenty of people on this blog giving you examples of what you’re requesting… Are you taking the time to read them or just shooting off your zombi, pre-programmed responses? For that matter, are you reading anything on this site? …Any of the links to articles?… or do you not have a mind of your own to take it upon your self to hear, read and listen? Wake up Mikey… you’re missing the bus.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
It didn’t even take 1 post before people were misrepresenting what Stein had said and proving his point. Jesus, folks, I’m an atheist, but all you people who like to think of yourselves as rational and scientific need to bone up on bias, because you can’t take a step without tripping over it. The sheer rage with which you respond to the anyone even entertaining the idea of a God calls into severe question your tempered objectivity.
Christopher Michael Langan was ID before ID was called ID. His IQ is like 195. He’s WAY smarter than you. If you argued with him, he’d destroy you with no trouble. That doesn’t make him right, but, when people WAY smarter than me believe things, I don’t run around acting like I know everything about everything. I try to understand why they think the way they do.
Another thing I don’t do is engage in tautology like “this person believes this thing, and I’ve already decided this thing is stupid, therefore they’re stupider than me so I don’t need to consider why they believe this thing.” Do you see the danger with that way of thinking? I try to decide whether people are smarter than me based on the most objective measures I can, not using self serving litmus tests that allow me to never question myself.
Being scientific minded isn’t tied to your belief about any particular thing. It’s a way of approaching life. It’s a method of inquiry. So many of you on your high horses do not see the irony in the way you behave. Your anger at people who disagree with you demonstrates as anti-scientific a mind set as any Christian fundamentalist.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Great work Ben, I look forward the film.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
“ngong Says:
August 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Testable ID hypothesis: since God is infinitely creative, we shouldn’t expect DNA sequence homologies between different species.
There, I answered your challenge, you evilutionist numbnuts!”
Nice theft of common descent. You idiot homologies of different species is because of common descent not creationism.
In biology “homology” is a fundamental similarity based on common descent.
Sorry you just used evolution.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:12 am
#493…Plenty of polls confirm that the number of scientists who believe in an Abrahamic God is significant (somewhere around 50%, if I recall), though not as high as the general population. So you’re
If you believe that God plopped down the animals 6,000 years ago, you’re simply not competent to be a biologist, biochemist, geologist, or paleontologist, though you might make it as a mathematician or engineer or the like. It’s not a question of academics conspiring against Abrahamic religion.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:57 am
“All generalizations are fair, including this one.” - Mark Twain
Interesting….
Extremely vitriolic ad hominem attacks…
Discourses filled with distortions, based on clearly deeply held personal beliefs…
Immediate dismissal and condemnation of any contrary views…
Sweeping generalizations made without regard for opposing viewpoints…or established facts…
Demonization of perceived dissenters…
Commentary and observations made from a definite epistemology…
Projection and accusations of the very things they themselves are doing intellectually…
Gosh, if evolution is REALLY true, maybe the critics will evolve to a higher state of mental superiority where civil discourse, open and tolerant discussion of conflicting views, with real, substantive debate of the issues will actually occur. Just think, in only a few million years, pretentious elitism and affected academic snobbery may be eliminated from the species! Why, maybe even basic etiquette and plain good manners will become standatd characteristics of the human genome!
It’s a staggering thing to consider…
To paraphrase the Bard: “…methinks the gentlemen doth protest too much…”
August 25th, 2007 at 1:03 am
“I’m hardly surprised at all the close-minded attitudes and childish attacks on Ben Stein here. If anything, they prove his point. Yes he dares to express the idea that acceptance of atheism should not be automatic, or at least that others (including - gasp - scientists) should be allowed to at least consider other possibilities. The nerve!
I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they wish - and although I may disagree, can understand and appreciate opposing viewpoints. How sad that most atheists by far (at least in my experience) cannot do the same. But again, this is hardly surprising. Narrow-mindedness, arrogance, and hypocrisy appear to be almost pre-requisites to it nowdays.”
_____________
_____________
That argument has been defeated too many times to count in the comments to this blog entry. People are mad at Stein because the documentary’s cries of persecution are BS. We’re telling him to shut up because science has always and will continue to be open to scientific study of the supernatural… providing it can actually be studied!
Thus far, the only type of supernatural study any ID’ists have put forth is to merely punch holes in evolution. That’s not how science works, so they have been rightfully shunned by the scientific community.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:04 am
To the editor:
“…maybe the critics will evolve to a higher state….
A better, clearer term I SHOULD’VE used was ” its’ advocates”, rather than “the critics” in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding of my intent. Please feel free to correct this, and thanks!
August 25th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Bill, you don’t seem to be listening to what anyone is saying. The issue is whether “the question” is legitimately in the realm of science in the first place. Legitimate science requires a testable hypothesis. “Something that can do anything at all did it” is not testable: it isn’t really even an “explanation” because it doesn’t explain anything.
Those that claim that people are not allowed to air their opinions are simply lying and misrepresenting things. The issue is not holding or even speaking opinions, but what people try to pass off as science.
Science is not atheistic: it’s mundane and empirical. Countless scientists are religious and speak about their religion and even talk about how their love of science and religion interact. Many of these people are the most respected and well-known in academic circles around.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:29 am
$1,000,000.00 will be awarded to the person who can give me just one fact that proves evolution to be true.
Hey, come on, your catch phrase is, “there is overwhelming evidence that proves evolution to be true.”
However, I want just one little fact. Come on, I’m waiting.
Tick . . Tick . . Tick ! !
I didn’t think so . . .
All of this talk about Darwinian evolution being a fact is just so much hot air.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Science thrives where scientists are free ask questions, even when those questions may not lead anywhere.
Yes, science thrives on controversial theories. The problem with ID is that it doesn’t provide a testable theory, let alone any testing or data to support it. It’s kind of difficult to keep an open mind towards a theory that doesn’t exist. Hence the ridicule.
Maybe Intelligent Design is much ado about nothing, but we’ll never know, because anyone who dares peer down that particular rabbit hole is ridiculed, belittled, and given their walking papers.
Funny how the vast evolutionist gag conpiracy prevents IDers from doing actual science, but doesn’t stop them from producing whiny PR and conspiracy theories.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Rob and Firemancarl,
Demonstrating typical dearth of logic skills by athiests/evolutionists, you assume that proving God exists is a pre-requisite for exposing “natural selection/random mutation” as a fraud.
“If there appears to be order in the universe, then there might be an intelligent designer.”
As any elementary student of logic knows, it is not necessary to prove the existence of an ID for the above to be a true statement. To assume that it is false because there is no absolute proof is illogical.
RE: order emerging from randomness, please provide as many testable examples here as you can. Since you apparently require such proof for your beliefs, surely you must be able to cite verifiable evidence to that effect.
(I won’t hold my breath…)
August 25th, 2007 at 2:12 am
500lbsofToothpaste,
ID isn’t science. It’s not testable, it predicts nothing, and there’s no supporting evidence.
LOL!! The same could be (and frequently is) said about macro-evolution and natural selection. What a goof…
August 25th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Just for a quick reply to Craig in 471:
I think I emphasized a point that was not what I intended to be the center point for the post.
I think here that the biggest issue has nothing to do with ID and Darwinism. It may as well be the argument over whether or not cigarettes cause cancer. There is both proof and counter-proof to both sides. But in all fairness you never see any widespread publications supporting cigarettes, when there is indeed some study and proof, because the anti-tobacco movement has gained such strength.
This is the exact same issue that plagues the bias in creationism and origin arguments.
And yes, Sir Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, but he was more a mathematician, and I believe he also did some probability figuring for life coming from other planets by way of drift and meteors and such, since the chance of life developing on a planet as young as ours is so dismal. The results for that were also astronomical.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:25 am
There is no hiding the religious agenda here. THERE JUST ISN’T ANY HIDING IT…aren’t there places where people of religious faith can get together and discuss their religious beliefs? aren’t those places called churches? Last i checked there was no shortage of churches in this country….in fact, i’m betting this “film” will be played in churches only, that’ll be very telling of the nature of its content…I have no problem with religion, just don’t try and pass it off as scientific.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Thank god the rest of the world laughs at america
August 25th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Mr. Stein,
I look forward to your documentary. Please disregard the din of the vapid rabble mobilized by PZ Myers and others.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Tom Aquines:
I don’t know why you bring up a quote on consensus. I specifically pointed out that all facts support evolution. Evolution isn’t true because people agree that it’s true, but because of the huge amounts of evidence for it.
But hey, you’ll do anything to avoid having the lie you are living destroyed by facts.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am
It is all about *freedom* folks! That is what the movie is about.
People who believe in intelligent design should have the freedom to get paid for having a job in a university while doing no research in intelligent design.
That way their afternoons are free for them to do whatever they want.
All they are asking for is freedom - Monday free, Tuesday free, Wednesday free, which leaves Thursday and Friday free to point out how much research they would be doing on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays , if they were not being suppressed by the Big Science Academy.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:15 am
#174…Plenty of supporters of evolution are and will be thrilled to see this movie come out, especially during the primaries. The backlash will be strong, and those respected scientists whose views were assaulted will have ample opportunities to launch counterarguments. Unintended consequences will emerge.
In the end, truth will prevail. While biologists have a pretty good idea where that lies, all the different kinds of creationists (young earth, old earth, Muslim, Christian, etc.) and IDers are gonna have to work overtime to present a united front.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Great posts, Matusieo!(256+409) The only thing I’ll correct you on is that it was Plato and Aristotle who were fond of the term “first cause.” Aquinas, who was a great admirer of both of these gentlemen gave spiritual substance to the term by changing it to:”first mover”.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:13 am
A bunch of thoughts:
1) From the way the trailer presents itself, Stein isn’t per se advocating ID, but rather ID as a “freedom of thought” issue.
2) I’m an evangelical Christian, but while I believe ID is true, it doesn’t belong in the lab or science classroom because it isn’t science. I also don’t have a problem with Darwinian evolution as basically true (but it doesn’t belong in the philosophy classroom…).
3) The discrimination experienced in science is over religious belief. It is real and does happen. I have never elsewhere seen the kind of bigotry as exists among elite scientists against students and peers who are sincere believers. (And, yes, I’ve witnesses this personally.)
If the film focuses on this discrimination on the basis of religious belief (rather than ID support), more power to it. There are plenty of religious scientists who don’t support ID and yet are dragged through the mud by their peers.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Chris writes:
“Those who claim the universe was created by an “intelligent designer” need to 1) prove the existence of such a designer using the scientific method and 2) explain who created the designer. If they fail, their “hypothesis” should be discarded and they should indeed be expelled. This mockumentary surely must be a joke!”
You require an explanation of who created the designer, we must ask of you the same thing in regard to evolution. Evolution is predicated on the “Big Bang” which required the existence of hydrogen to happen. Is hydrogen something or nothing? Of course it is something, so can you you explain where it came from?
Would you have us intelligent, rational beings believe that hydrogen just appeared from nothing?
The demand you make of ID or more accurately Creationism is also required of you, explain how something came from nothing. You refer to this documentary as a joke, the joke is on you as you demand of others what you cannot produce yourself. Tell us, where did hydrogen come from?
August 25th, 2007 at 7:45 am
A response to “I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses: I too am a scientist and work on pathogens. It was my work that convienced me the molecules to humans evolution is not true. Read Michaels Behe’s new book for a review of the research. My work with bacteria pathogens convienced me evolution has clear limits and I have seen no evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can go beyond these limits. A comment by Adam S. WILKINS (editor of the BioEssays Journal) is also my experience
“The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” p. 1051
WILKINS, Adam S.
2000 Intro (issue on Evolutionary Processes) pp. 1051-1052
BioEssays vol. 22 no.12 December
August 25th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Javascript - I see that, like all the others, you claim the question has been answered, but you don’t actually give us the answer or even a link or pointer to it. Funny, that’s just how all the other pro-ID folk are responding!
I just scrolled through the whole thread again, looking for any pro-ID links to actual data, studies, or answers to the questions and rebuttals by the pro-science side. I didn’t see a single one that wasn’t a link to an avowedly christian apologetics site. Perhaps you could point some of them out for us?
Not one person from the pro-ID side has responded to any of the reams of answers provided at the talk.origins links, not to ask follow up questions, nor to try to point out errors. I wonder why?
Every ‘proof’ of ID given so far has been an attempt to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution. This entirely overlooks the fact that, even if you were able to prove the ToE wrong, that doesn’t do anything to prove the ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design RIGHT. Those are not the only two possible alternatives! But one of them, (The Theory of Evolution), has not yet been falsified by any of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peer-reviewed studies, studies that can be found at PubMed.com among other places, studies and experiments that have been done for over 100 years now, and STILL Evolution stands tall as the only consistent answer.
There really ARE a lot of ways that the theory could be shown to be false. Fossil rabbits (or any other modern species) found in Cambrian or Jurrassic strata, or a multicelled species whos DNA didn’t fit into the nested heirarchy that *every other species on earth* fits neatly into now. (Do you even know what that MEANS?)
A dog giving birth to a cat would do it - I keep seeing people holding that up as proof that evolution doesn’t happen, ‘We’ve never seen a dog give birth to a cat!’, when that would actually be quite a strong sign that there was something seriously WRONG with the theory.
I’m amazed at how many people claim to see all the pro-evolution posts as saying ‘Shut up!’ I don’t actually see anything like that. I see a lot of people speaking their mind, while giving the rest of you every chance to speak yours as well. No one is telling you to shut up, we’re just saying that this crap shouldn’t be taught in schools or treated with respect until its proponents actually DO SOME RESEARCH! We’ve got lots, see all the links? Follow some of them and do some reading, you might learn something!
Funny, Every poster who claims to be a real scientist or work in the biosciences are all on the Evolution side, whether they believe in God or not - and some of them DO, as they’ve stated here. Some claim that we are all atheists, but there are plenty of scientists who are quite open about their religion, and no one has threatened their jobs or tenure.
Pretty much all the links I see in these posts are by the pro-evolution side. They seem like good links, too!
Here’s a recap of some of the most informative ones. Before accusing us of close-mindedness, could you read some of these and explain why they’re wrong?
What are some evidences of evolution/macroevolution?
Where are the transitional fossils?
Answers to over a dozen common objections to Evolution.
Many, MANY objections debunked. Quite a lot of these have appeared in this very thread, but no one from the pro-ID side ever seems to read or respond to these answers, they just keep asking the same oft-debunked questions over and over..
Speciation observed. More speciation events observed!
I do see one person on the pro-ID side has posted several links. AnswersInGenesis.org? ChristianAnswers.net? ApologeticsPress.org? For a completely scientific, non-religeous ‘theory’, why are all these links to christian apologetics sites? Why so many posters here talking about the christian god? I thought Intelligent Design was being careful not to postulate anything whatsoever about who/what/where/how/when/why the Designer did whatever he/she/it/they did?
Have any of you read the details of the Kitzmiller Trial in Dover, Pa? Have you read the Wedge Document, in which the Discovery Institute admits that their purpose is to ‘Reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.’ and ‘To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.’
This is not a scientific theory being laid out, it’s a plan to sneak religion into schools under the guise of science - And they admit it!
Ermine!
August 25th, 2007 at 8:32 am
A response to “I am a scientist who uses the theory of evolution in my work on viruses”: I too am a scientist and also work on pathogens. It was my scientific work, not religion (I was an atheist), that convienced me the molecules to humans evolution theory is not true. Read Michael Behe’s new book for a review of the research. My work with bacteria pathogens convienced me evolution has clear limits and I have seen no evidence that Darwinian mechanisms can go beyond these limits. A comment by Adam S. WILKINS (editor of the BioEssays Journal) is also my experience.
“The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” p. 1051
WILKINS, Adam S.
2000 Intro (issue on Evolutionary Processes) pp. 1051-1052
BioEssays vol. 22 no.12 December
August 25th, 2007 at 8:55 am
JBagail has a point.
Let us see how Darwinists think pathogens could have evolved without a God to design them.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Please explain your research to us because I did read Behes book and find plenty of refutations by numerous biologist including the Christian who supports Darwinian Natural Selection and not ID, Ken Miller.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Ah, Borat-movie about fundamentalist christian nutballs, this should be great!
August 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
“There is no Mafia, and we’ll kill anyone who says there is!” - Old 60’s joke
One can’t help but notice the almost immediate resort to personal insults (”moron” has been said at couple of times I think.), attacks on credentials, personal beliefs, etc. Frankly, making vicious remarks on an individual’s core beliefs doesn’t impress me as a valid argument, in and of itself. It does, however, lead you to question the attacker’s motives and rationale. Not to mention that it proves Stein’s contention of academic intolerance, and suppression of ideas because they may have connections to religious or theological premises. The reactions and responses on this blog are evidence of it. And a one-way ratchet based on it will never be a sufficient answer.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Ben
In consideration of the phrase ‘intelligent design’, perhaps ‘intelligent’ should be deleted, substituted by ‘unintelligent,’ ‘malevolent’, or perhaps the more neutral ‘planned’. Humans are riddled with ‘design’ flaws: retinas that are not physcally attached to the eye wall (making them prone to detachment), fragile vascular suppy to key structures (like the optic nerve), an appendix (the only function of which is to cause appendicitis), a chaotic lower back architecture (we all know about back pain), weak knee ligaments (you play tennis?), an immune system prone to turning against our own bodies (diabetes, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, etc), childbirth charaterized by intense physical suffering by the mother, and apoptosis or programmed cell death (our bodies are programmed to die after a set duration of time… how compassionate!). That doesn’t even take into account the mental flaws of humans, who through greed, lust for power, and religious fervor, kill and destroy each other and the environment on a massive scale. I’d think that if a loving intelligent being were directing evolution, we would have ended up lot different than we are now.
Jim
August 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
@ Brian Barkley, just google: 29 evolution.
I’ll let you guess what the 29 means.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Thom wrote:
“Hey Ben, the Pope called. He said, “Ben Stein is an absurdity.””
Yes I know this was one of the first comments, but I couldn’t help not the irony that someone who seems so torn up about the religious weighing in on science would use the POPE’s statment as ammo against Ben Stein and to weigh in against him. This wreaks of opportunism and is clearly a double standard. I suppose religion is ok as long as it has no heart, and/or makes every admission to a materialistic philiosophy that according to these anti-religionists themselves subverts and undermines it.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Re: #249
Here’s George Will on Intelligent Design:
“The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school’s science curriculum.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/
Try again.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Yes, ad hominem attacks are juvenile, and do not counter any argument. So speak not of whatever latent racism Darwin had or of Dawkins’s seeming confrontational attitude, as they in no way invalidate their research. And trying to focus on said personal attacks while ignoring all the solid evidence in other arguments above assists you not in the realm of science. Has Mr. Stein not heard of Tiktaalik? Or read of the Dover trial proceedings? Here, allow me to provide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
August 25th, 2007 at 10:51 am
I will admit, that i am quick to throw any thoughts on ID in the garbage (where I think it belongs).
I do not think you can blame those that don’t tolerate it. Time and time again, biologists and others have been asking ID supporters for evidence, or research to support their hypothesis (that’s what science is all about).
Instead, what we get is people that ignore the requests, and continue trying to poke holes in evolution, usually ones that have already been answered a million times before (I can’t believe people say it has never been observed. A few researchers caused speciation in fruit flies already, clearly those who use the “I accept micro but not macro evolution “are just plain ignorant)
No one is saying that we know ALL the answers for sure, nor can we predict everything thus far. I’ll admit, I haven’t the slightest clue where hydrogen came from, though I have read some thoughts on the subject, things like the multiverse theory and such.
However, even though evolution *may* have holes in it, it does not for one second mean that ID is credible at all.
Can you show me one scientific paper that shows some proof the human body was designed? Biological proof. Any? Please, I will gladly wait. Is it really too much to ask for? So far, no one on the ID side can give us any, but if you can, go win the nobel prize, because a lot of people would love to see it.
Stop assuming that even if you proved that evolution is IMPOSSIBLE that your ID thoughts (not theory) are any more plausible, because they don’t even begin to follow the scientific method.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am
“Every ‘proof’ of ID given so far has been an attempt to poke holes in the Theory of Evolution. This entirely overlooks the fact that, even if you were able to prove the ToE wrong, that doesn’t do anything to prove the ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design RIGHT. Those are not the only two possible alternatives! But one of them, (The Theory of Evolution), has not yet been falsified by any of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peer-reviewed studies, studies that can be found at PubMed.com among other places, studies and experiments that have been done for over 100 years now, and STILL Evolution stands tall as the only consistent answer.”
You are missing the larger points. Intelligent Design does not simply rule out evolution as plausible then postulate design because evolution is no longer plausible, rather, it is because there are no plausible mechanisms, evolution, jelly beans, whatever. By ruling out both random and natural mechanisms for generating complexity, the only type of mechanisms that remain are teleological. As for the peer-reviewed studies, you need more than simply a glossy veneer on actual research to provide evidence for evolution. If one has a flexible enough conceptual framework, one could fit anything into it, but does it qualify as evidence? hardly. The real issue is that evolution is still troubled with the same problems it had from the very beginning when Darwin formed the theory for example the cambrian explosion… and arguments like Haldane’s Dilemma continue to be an unaddressed problem there have also been many new problems pointed out, like the molecular clock.
“For a completely scientific, non-religeous ‘theory’, why are all these links to christian apologetics sites?”
Clearly Christians are arguing for the existence of a creator they would probably think the Designer is God. I see no particular problem with that.
“Why so many posters here talking about the christian god?”
Probably because they are baited or they are simply used to being baited. I have tried to have discussions about ID with many evolution advocates, and there at least 90% of the time it is they who bring up “God” not we.
“I thought Intelligent Design was being careful not to postulate anything whatsoever about who/what/where/how/when/why the Designer did whatever he/she/it/they did?”
See the above response.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am
One last thing Ermine, the Talkorigins nonsense that you are parroting like a Bible has been shot down over and over and over.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:05 am
“Brian Barkley Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 1:29 am
$1,000,000.00 will be awarded to the person who can give me just one fact that proves evolution to be true.”
WEVE SEEN IT HAPPEN, BRIAN.
I TAKE PAYPAL!
August 25th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I see many from the science community here demanding proof of this and that. They state that ToE can not be proven to be false. Well, looks like your chickens have come home to roost people. Apply the same grid to yourselves that you ask of others…BOTH ARE FAITH BASED. BOTH ARE A RELIGION.
Prove where the matter came from that caused the Big Bang. Prove that ID is false. Prove there is no God. Prove that the theory of evolution is true. For decades you guys have spent billions of dollars and not been able to do any of the above. It’s time that we explore some other ideas. Now, sit down and be respectful, or we will take away your grants!!!
August 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
# Lord Timothy Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am
One last thing Ermine, the Talkorigins nonsense that you are parroting like a Bible has been shot down over and over and over.”
Please provide a source timothy for your claim. I’ve never seen anyone refute talkorigins.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Dudeness, maybe people would take you seriously if you learned what an appeal to ignorance was.
Evolution is hardly faith based. Do you even know what it is? Clearly you don’t, because the theory does not talk about the big bang at all.
It is not up for us to prove Id false, thats where you are appealing to ignorance. You have to prove it true, since that is where the burden of proof lies. Science is not about proof, it is about probability. In the case of Evolution, the probability it happened (after looking at the evidence) is extremely high. However, biological science, as well as many other fields, does not work on proving things like a court of law would.
People have linked a lot of evidence for it above, and if you would take the time to read those, you would find the proof. Or you could simply take a high school biology course, both would suffice.
I have a feeling your just trolling/flaming, and have little if anything original to say. So just move along please.
Lord Timothy, You seem to be talking like ID is an actual theory, and actually can make at least one testable hypothesis, that predicts results. If you dont understand a scientific method, read about it here:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
Now if ID follows all the steps, then please show me how it does, because I just don’t see it.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:53 am
511# Ceven Starr Says: I don’t know why you bring up a quote on consensus. I specifically pointed out that all facts support evolution.
Tom Aquines says:
All I’m saying is that Dawinoids will go down in history, like brilliant 1923 American Nobel Laureate in Physics, Robert Millikan, who said “There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.”
This used to be a “fact”.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I applaud your courage to take on such a contentious topic! Most of these people already know they are right and so they ridicule you before even seeing the film. I think you are going to lose a lot of fans and make a lot of enemies, but go one you are right.
Something very significant is going on with “pseudo-science” like ID. Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution, is a good example.
Virtually all the critics of the book have been scientists. Why is that and why is it significant? If Intelligent Design isn’t science why don’t these scientific critics just pass the book on to philosophers or theologians? They don’t, and they don’t criticize the book on the basis of it not being science, either. They critique it, not very sucessfully in my opinion, on the basis of the merits of its scientific claims.
Now this is very odd. If ID is not science then many scientists are reviewing a book that discusses matters on which they have no expertise, and no one seems to think this inappropriate. Somebody call Judge John Jones who ruled in the Dover case that ID wasn’t science. Maybe he can help us understand this phenomenon.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
A discovery last month has proven evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/ENN.htm
Someone should tell Ben.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
We can all agree on the fact that Intelligent design is religious in nature. The wedge document and the Dover trial established that as a fact.
Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory.
Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I’m enjoying your blog, Ben, and looking forward to seeing Expelled in February. I’m sure you already have thick enough skin, but here’s a quick encouragement for you to be prepared for all the usual bluster, anger, slings and arrows from the self-styled “free-thinker” crowd. They’re a merciless bunch and probably already hate you as much as the God they keep trying to explain away. Godspeed, my friend, and here’s wishing you a fascinating journey! It’s an honor and a pleasure to greet you and wish you well. Let freedom ring!
August 25th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
GK said: “Evolution is predicated on the “Big Bang” which required the existence of hydrogen to happen.”
Evolution is not predicated on the Big Bang at all. Even if some day we find out that God created the universe after all, that doesn’t affect the validity of the theory of evolution at all.
And the Big Bang did not require the existence of hydrogen. The current theory is that everything, time, space, matter (including hydrogen) is the *result* of the Big Bang.
“Would you have us intelligent, rational beings believe that hydrogen just appeared from nothing?”
How would you react if I told you that everywhere in space, particles and antiparticles are being constantly created out of nothing and then quickly annihilating each other? This is a consequence of quantum mechanics and can actually be demonstrated.
“Tell us, where did hydrogen come from?”
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang and scroll down to the section labeled “Overview”. The protons at the core of hydrogen atoms were made about a millionth of a second after the Bang. It didn’t cool down enough for the electrons to join with the protons to form hydrogen atoms until about 380,000 years later.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Dudeness said: “They state that ToE can not be proven to be false.”
Huh? I challenge you to find a single scientist who will tell you that the theory of evolution cannot be proven false. All we would need to do is find a fossil elephant in, say, undisturbed Cretaceous strata and that would indicate that something was fundamentally wrong with the theory.
“Prove that ID is false. Prove there is no God.”
You cannot prove a negative. Prove that there isn’t a small purple giraffe under your bed right now.
“Prove that the theory of evolution is true.”
Scientific theories can *never* be proven true. They can only be proven false. This is why we still refer to things like “the germ theory of disease”. Einstein himself said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
“It’s time that we explore some other ideas.”
Scientists are always ready to explore other ideas, provided they are scientific ideas.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Ben, I am laughing out loud at the comments skewering you. They just prove your point over and over and over for as long as I want to read. I can’t wait to see your movie.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Interested Observer said: “Not to mention that it proves Stein’s contention of academic intolerance, and suppression of ideas because they may have connections to religious or theological premises.”
There is no suppression of ideas. What is being suppressed are inherently religious ideas that are being presented as science.
Would you want a geology professor who taught that the earth was flat and had four corners because the Bible says so? Or believed, as the ancient Greeks did, that earthquakes are caused by the god Poseidon?
Would you want an astronomy professor who thought the heavens were a crystal sphere or that the sun revolved around the earth?
Would you want a meteorology teacher who asserted that lighting was caused by Thor, the god of thunder and war, swinging his hammer Mjolnir?
The situation is exactly the same with evolution.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
#539 Andy Says: Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory. Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.
Gloppy Finch sez: YES! Separate but equal! In worked with Jim Crow laws. It should work now!
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/Separate.html
August 25th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
You claim to be for free-spech.
Will you have the courage to go as far as giving some time in your movie to a third possibility for the explanation of how life began on this earth ?
This possibility is that the ¨God¨ of the Bible (a hebrew plural word: ELOHIM) was or more exactly ¨were¨ a group of extra-terrestrial scientists who created US in their image thanks to genetic knowledge and cloning in a laboratory that was poetically named in the bible; the ¨Garden of Eden¨ ?
I hope you will not expell smart ideas from your movie !
August 25th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I can’t wait to see Mr. Stein’s movie. He has this exactly right. Science isn’t only about facts and figures, testable hypotheses, and experiments. It’s about FREEDOM. Freedom to think and experiment on whatever you want. Jesus made all the animals 6000 years ago. 4000 years ago, a great flood washed all over the world, and Noah took pairs of all the animals onto the Ark. Even the dinosaurs. The AiG museum in KY makes this perfectly clear.
Great scientists like Ben Stein, Ken Ham, Dr. Ken Hovind, and Dr. Michael Behe have been kept out of the public schools for too long. It’s the rabid atheists that keep the TRUTH away from america’s children, damning us all to H-E-double hockey sticks. They hoard all the grant money so that AiG, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute can’t do any science.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“# Andy Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
We can all agree on the fact that Intelligent design is religious in nature. The wedge document and the Dover trial established that as a fact.
Let’s keep religion in the church and science in the laboratory.
Let’s teach ID in philosophy class and evolution in science class.”
FINE, THEN STOP TRYING TO USE MATERIALISM TO TRY AND DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A CREATOR GOD…DO YOUR SCIENCE AND LEAVE THE THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OUT OF THE SCIENCE LAB!
August 25th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
fraxnoz said: “RE: order emerging from randomness, please provide as many testable examples here as you can.”
OK, here are some pictures of order emerging from randomness:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyclone_Catarina_from_the_ISS_on_March_26_2004.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bentley_Snowflake4.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Giants_causeway_closeup.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/mexicocrystals.html
August 25th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“It is not up for us to prove Id false, thats where you are appealing to ignorance. You have to prove it true, since that is where the burden of proof lies.
Then you need to prove evolution true and not hide behind the “hypothesis” excuse.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The film will explore the influence of Darwinism on Hitler?
Hitler never once mentioned Darwin, Darwinism or natural selection.
Hitler did say the following though (as recorded in Hitler’s Table Talk)
‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’
August 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
PROOF OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
The Ebola
Such a small creature. For starters, it has the ability to cause high fever, severe headache, muscle, joint, or abdominal pain, severe weakness and exhaustion, sore throat, nausea, and dizziness.
It can further inflict diarrhea, dark or bloody feces, vomiting blood, red eyes due to distention and hemorrhage of sclerotic arterioles, petechia, maculopapular rash, purpura, and internal and external hemorrhage from orifices, such as the nose and mouth, as well as from incompletely healed injuries such as needle-puncture sites.
It doesn’t stop there. Next come hypotension, hypovolemia, tachycardia, organ damage (especially the kidneys, spleen, and liver) as a result of disseminated systemic necrosis, and proteinuria.
All these, if the infected is lucky, can last to at least even days. If the person just has bad luck, expect another week before the final rest.
Isn’t that amazing? It couldn’t have risen by random chance. No way! It must have been designed by a really, I mean really, intelligent being.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
This is not a movie that comes from the Discovery Institute. So why did Stein and the movie producers decide to make this movie? I’d say the clues from their web page are rather obvious. Apparently, the widespread media attention to Sternberg’s treatment and the decision to deny Gonzalez’s tenure got somebody’s attention. Imagine that. Adding to this is the significant role played by none other than Richard Dawkins, whose popular anti-religious crusade now includes telling people to “shut up.” In other words, it looks like the words and behavior of the critics of ID suceeded in getting Stein et al.’s attention.
http://telicthoughts.com/validating-expelled/
August 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Javascript @ 494:
It must be hard for you to get through the day with that incredibly dense noodle resting on your shoulders. Just point me to the evidence. It certainly hasn’t been provided on this blog and if I’ve overlooked it, give me the post #. I’m afraid Answers is Genesis doesn’t cut it. Just one more disingenuous creationist.
As Judge Jones said in Dover:
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.”
“ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”
Who has missed the bus?
August 25th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I think the point that most of you ardent atheistic evolution supporters are missing, is that evolution and creationism both REQUIRE an initial starting point. I think that we can all agree on that, right? What creationists are trying to point out to you is that you cannot simply ignore this part of the discussion and simply assume that “evolution did it.” It’s simple enough for you to hypocritically berate creationists for saying “God did it,” and using that as your basis for better credibility, but you are trying to point out the splinter in our eye, without concern of the log in your own eye. The basic question of how everything began is not just a side-note of little significance, it IS the question. If you cannot explain life WITHOUT a creator, then you have no basis for a theory excluding one; because logically, if life cannot come from non-life, then it must have been constructed by an intelligent agent.
For those who use the Miller-Urey experiment as support, they are missing the point. The conclusion of the experiment was that intelligent human beings could not create the building blocks required for even a single protein; and not just in a laboratory setting, but in a highly controlled, highly intentional laboratory environment in which oxygen was left out, and traps were set to quickly separate the particles produced from the electrical stimulation before they were destroyed by the very energy that created them. It’s also worth pointing out that in this experiment they managed to make less than a 2% amino acid mixture and approximately 85% toxic carcinogenic mixture we know as tar. Two things should also be noted about this process:
1) Oxygen destroys amino acids, yet oxygen is needed to make ozone, which protects the earth from harmful ultra-violet radiation which destroys amino acids. This is just one of the many “chicken and the egg” problems that pose as a barrier for the beginnings of evolution. In the oldest, deepest rock strata, carbon remnants are found to be oxidized, which suggests an oxygen rich environment from the time the earth was created.
2) The few amino acids that were created during the Miller-Urey experiment were racemic in nature (equal amount of right and left-handed products), as are all amino acids that are produced outside of living organisms. This is due to the nature of amino acids, whose tendency is to move toward equilibrium. In fact, even if you somehow isolated all the left-handed amino acids in a group, in time they would return to a 50:50 mixture. The problem with this, is that practically all known life-essential proteins are specifically left-handed, and not only is there no known natural process that can isolate these two variables, but just one right handed amino acid will render an otherwise stable protein useless.
So what does this tell us about the subsequent beginnings of life? Well for one, even fifty years later we still cannot intelligently synthesize the basic components of life, much less life itself. And this is the generation that has broadband internet, cell-phones, plasma TVs, and particle accelerators. Even if (and that is a big if) scientists could synthesize actual life in a laboratory, all that would prove is that intelligence WAS REQUIRED to create life! Think about the logical inference of that for a second. Let it soak in. Yes, a human being with 100 trillion extremely complex cells working together is far more complex than a few amino acids; so how do we propose we got to this point? You assume evolution. Why? Because natural selection, a process that refines and diminishes DNA content (i.e. not creates or builds upon) allows organisms to adapt to variable environments. That sounds like an intelligent mechanism for survival, not a random chance occurrence.
So if you cannot explain how evolution started (without saying “God did it”) and you have no mechanism that increases genetic complexity in information content (which evolution requires on a massive scale), what makes you think that the visible evidence (i.e. fossils, geological phenomena, DNA comparison, etc.) is not subject to interpretation?
Basically the whole theory of evolution is based on a series of unverifiable assumptions. “Life began from non-life.” How? Why? Where is your evidence? “Well, evolution requires it.” And creationism requires a creator, which we have a historical account of, and a highly designed universe that cannot be explained otherwise. “Commonalities in DNA structure mean everything came from a common ancestor.” Why not a common designer? Why aren’t the commonalities distributed uniformly throughout nature? For example: there is a 75 % similarity between the DNAs of nematode worms and man. Comparisons carried out between the genes of fruit flies belonging to the Drosophila species and human genes yielded a similarity of 60%. The number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46. A chimp has 48; a human and mouse share more than 90% of the same genes, and close to 50% with bananas. Why can we not attribute this to a common designer? Furthermore, what reason would evolution, a completely arbitrary process, have for utilizing the same DNA and protein structures anyways? One would think that if we all had completely different DNA composition, this would be more evident of a random process such as evolution than a common designer. Biologic universals such as Cytochrome c, a life-essential protein that is prevalent in almost all known living organisms, do not make sense if all species diverged from a single, common ancestor. How does a non-thinking, reasonless process such as evolution create critical benchmarks for what is to be deemed necessary for life? How then would that reference point be passed on, and what would it be passed on to exactly? It’s not the fact that there are biologic universals that is the problem per se, but that there are hundreds if not thousands of them that set the precedence for what defines a living organism. Randomness does not create functioning models, from which structural integrity is derived. “Radioactive dating proves long ages.” What evidence do you have that the assumptions you use for dating are valid? These assumptions include:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
Also, when dating objects of known age, results are often not even remotely close, and are off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years. How then can you confidently claim the dates given to objects of unknown age are incontrovertible? “Humans evolved over millions of years from a single-celled organism.” Why then do you not have a viable mechanism that creates new information as evidence of this? Polyploidy and gene duplication only copy existing information; no new information is added. Mutations cause a loss and scrambling of existing information, they cannot create new, useful information for specific coding processes. “Organisms developed new characteristics that helped them to survive and in turn passed these on to latter generations.” Besides the lack of any information increasing mechanism, there are two problems with this: 1.There are no fossils which leave a clearly defined transition between any particular family (kind) of creature, so any observed characteristics of individual organisms do not necessarily preclude those from being specifically designed for that creature; nor do they discount the possibility that there were originally specific, created kinds that within 4500 years have utilized rapid speciation (which we presently observe at rates millions of times faster than evolution predicts) to account for all the species we now know. Assumptions to the contrary are only conjecture, not evidence for evolution. 2. Any sub-change to an already functional mechanism of an organism would certainly be detrimental to survival rather than favorable. Imagine a reptile with a proto-wing/leg trying to escape a predator; he wouldn’t survive long enough to reproduce, and certainly would not be appealing to mates with his freakish appendage. The same can be said for irreducibly complex mechanisms which require specific biological parts which would otherwise be useless on their own, and would be a hindrance to survival rather than a benefit. “Homology proves common descent.” This is nonsense. We do not argue that because transistors appear similar to capacitors or that diodes appear similar to resistors that they are in fact derived from one another or have the same electrical significance; nor are they any less uniquely designed because the designer chose similar shapes, features, or materials to create them. This argument is baseless at best, and cannot be used as evidence any more than commonalities inferring a common designer. “Dinosaurs died out 65-68 million years ago.” Why then are we finding dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue attached to bone? We are also finding mummified dinosaurs as well. A few things to consider: The word dinosaur was actually not invented until the mid 1800’s by Sir Richard Owen. Prior to this, there are many examples from every major culture of legends of dragons and dinosaur-like creatures existing with humans. Also, most dinosaurs were rather small, unlike the T-Rex and Brontosaurus (theropod and sauropod respectively) which were gigantic. These larger reptiles were more than likely hunted to extinction due to their threatening stature in light of man. Such is the case in present times when dangerous creatures such as bears, tigers, sharks, or wolves threaten territorial cohabitation with man; man hunts them to [near] extinction. Also, most reptiles never stop growing throughout their lifetime, so if people, and there also reptiles, lived much longer prior to the Flood (men lived 900+ years; shortly after the flood closer to 400; and then just over 100 years) they would have grown much larger in the past. Some creatures such as monitor lizards, Komodo dragons, Gila monsters, iguanas, crocodiles and alligators, and the many species of lizards we know of would probably be considered dinosaurs today if they were to live a couple hundred years or more. On a side-note, Genesis 6:3 is an astonishing prediction about the average length of life humans will ultimately not surpass, and which we now observe. “The Geologic Column is a representation of the timeline of evolution.” Why is the Geologic Column not found in whole anywhere on earth except in the textbooks? Why are “out of place” fossils ignored when they do not fit the accepted geologic model timeline? How can different levels of strata be posited as millions of years apart when polystrate fossils cut through several layers of these strata? Why are index fossils used to date certain rock strata or rock strata used to date these fossils depending on whether the desired results correspond with the presupposed model or not? “Fossils support evolution.” Fossils are only evidence that something died in the past, nothing more. Interpretation of these fossils is at best a guessing game, because it is based on one’s presuppositions of our origins and history. Fossilization is a rare occurrence in all actuality. In fact, in most cases fossils do not form unless there is some kind of cataclysmic event such as flooding or mudslides to rapidly cover the organism in sediment. So why do we find literally billions of fossils worldwide, including mass fossil graves, polystrate fossils, fossils of fish eating other fish, jellyfish fossils, organisms in the middle of giving birth that are fossilized, not to mention the Cambrian Explosion? It seems to me that something pretty catastrophic happened some time ago involving lots of water and mixing of sediments; but again, that is only my interpretation.
FOR ALL OF YOU THAT ARE YEC BIBLE BELIEVERS, DO NOT LET THE WILLINGLY IGNORANT DISHEARTEN YOU; THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT PEOPLE WILL BE WILLINGLY IGNORANT ABOUT THE FLOOD AND HIS CREATION AND ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE:
(Romans 1:20)“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”
(2 Peter 3:5-7) “For this they willingly are ignorant of…Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”
It’s simple; there is no excuse for not seeing the amazing creation and knowing that there is a designer behind it all, and in turn seeking out that designer. Scientists are certainly not among the least of these; for their work gives them firsthand insight into the immense complexity of the universe that substantiates the undeniable need for a creator, and therefore they must be held accountable for perpetuating this subterfuge; which quite obviously many people are surreptitiously indoctrinated into (as I once was) from a very young age.
For more information, or for a different perspective, check out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
My email is bioliquid2fusion@yahoo.com if you wish to email me. Thank you.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Glenn, how do the comments skewering him prove his point? Never mind. Let’s return to…
Steven Carr Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 3:26 am
“People who believe in intelligent design should have the freedom to get paid for having a job in a university while doing no research in intelligent design.”
And they do. So what’s your problem?
Look up Ken Miller.
That way their afternoons are free for them to do whatever they want.
All they are asking for is freedom - Monday free, Tuesday free, Wednesday free, which leaves Thursday and Friday free to point out how much research they would be doing on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays , if they were not being suppressed by the Big Science Academy.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Oh, and pathogens:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH321.html
August 25th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Compare the censorship of Intelligent Design with the freedom in religious circles.
Noted Christian apologist Gary Habermas says here Habermas on the resurrection> ‘Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it.’
Christians claim one in 4 Biblical scholars doubt the empty tomb.
But do you hear claims that these scholars should be EXPELLED from the academic Biblical community?
Of course not!
Christians are perfectly happy with the idea that one in 4 scholars doubt the empty tomb, yet Darwinists howl if one biologist in 10,000 even questions Darwinism.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Jasonx10 Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“I am no scientist, but i am equipped to answer your questions.”
Apparently NOT:
“Intelligent Design is the belief that - rather than an origin of order resulting from chaos and matter from nothing”
This is not what evolution teaches. Try again. Without straw men this time.
the entirity of empirical science we observe today does a greater job of pointing toward an intelligent designer - a God”
Wrong. You will only come to this conclusion if you ignore the actual evidence.
“a self-evolving universe that contradicts the norm of entropy.”
When will creationist nuts learn to stop using straw man arguments and factual errors?
August 25th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I managed to mess up my answer to Steven Carr. My point was that his position is, as always for creationists, ignoring the facts and making up crap.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Ben,
I must say I for one am glad someone is finally making a stand on this issue. I find that most evolutionists are sorely lacking in facts much like the THEORY they cling to so desperately. A few years ago, it was widely publicized a professor was fired for his acceptance of intelligent design. As for the nay-sayers most of the so called evidence for evolution has been publicly proven false and the theory constantly being modified to explain away evidence that does not fit. Fossils of a fish that still exist are use to date rock strata at millions of years old, But the intellectual elite turn a blind eye to this gaping hole in their theory. In short I hope that these close minded people can for a moment open up and see the truth in your film. But I am afraid that our nation is too set in it’s little lies to recognize the truth.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Materialists are normally not capable of grasping the big picture, otherwise they would not be materialists. The study of science isolated from the tempering influence of philosophy and history creates in them a dull shield that renders them impervious to reason. They simply don’t know enough about the subject to be embarrassed by their isolation. If they knew the difference between Aristotle-Aquinas-Paley and Tertullian-Augustine-Anselm, they would certainly know the difference between creation science and intelligent design. I don’t blame them any more than I blame the educational system that cheated them. Brainwashed in Darwinism, they embody exactly what the established elite wanted them to—dutiful little worker bees.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
If freedom were a “God-Given Right”, Ben, The Simulator wouldn’t have expelled It’s Prototypes from the Garden for, as you endorse, the pursuit of the Freedom Of Inquiry.
Your own God kicked out His Creation for their want of knowledge.
It should also be noted that Your God endorsed and encouraged slavery. So I guess that’s a “God-Given Right” as well.
August 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Can there be the slightest doubt how most of these folks would behave if they were on tenure/hiring committees and were faced with an ID advocate? Ben, your point is amply proven here. These guys remind me of nothing so much as jihadis screaming “Call Islam a violent religion and we will kill you!”
August 25th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Re: #537
Esaskar,
The proponents of ID have packaged their personal religious theories in a way that they claim is compatible with the methods of science. To see if that is so, scientists evaluate these theories by applying the scientific method. This methodology is not optional. All scientifically testable theories, however crackpot they may be, are studied using the same scientific processes.
The application of the scientific method, to any theory at all, imparts no credence to the theory itself. In a similar way, being hit by a bat doesn’t make you a baseball.
Scientists generally do not care what the theory is, so long as it holds up to the scrutiny. Scientists simply follow the evidence. Not one bit of testable evidence shows there is a god. However, if new evidence appears and that leads to a god, then nearly all of science would surely follow. Science, much more than any religion, fundamentally loves change.
August 25th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I love these comments that state that criticism of Mr. Stein somehow validates his point. What planet does that make sense on?
Perhaps Mr. Stein is being criticized because ID is make-believe science put forward as a stalking horse to cover a religious agenda? Could it be that simple?
August 25th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The slanderers here kinda prove, the point, don’t they?
What are they so afraid of?
August 25th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of, Steve. I’m afraid of living in a world where the future leaders of the most powerful and influential nation on Earth are brought up to believe that over 100 years of scientific progress are trumped by a magic book. That’s what I’m afraid of.
August 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism.”
Thomas Sowell
August 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I was under the impression that Intelligent Design was an observation that random chance processes have failed to explain what is going on.
How did we get from that idea to “Liars for Jesus?” Unless, bigogtry is actually going on against theists in the Scientific community.
But, for the critics. The conservation of energy when applied to the big bang requires something other than the universe to be its cause. But, unless the universe itself is a black hole, recapturing the background radiation will never work. Thus, only a finite number of pre-universes could ever have existed. Each is finite in time, so an ultimate birthdate of the universe must exist. — and, what ever caused that universe to be born… could not have been the universe or a pre-universe. Then, the universe itself is a measurable consequence of an “else” or “other” that meets the ordinary definition of the word, “God”.
If it exists, it must do some thing measurabe. The universe exists and is finite in age, the energy in the universe needs an ultimate source. Call it what every you like, but I think the conservation of engergy is a valid scientic principle. Why don’t you?
While we are asking science questions. When will biology stop lying to the public by saying, “Evolution is as true as the law of gravity.” It took 150 years for the theory of gravity to produce a mountain of evidence for its critics to review: moon by moon, planet by planet, star by star, stellar pair by stellar pair, cluster, galaxies, black holes and even sub-atomic forms of gravity. I humbly ask for the mountain of genetic evidence that biology ought to have for its critics.
Pick any two creatures. Show me exactly which sequence of genes chagned in order — without killing the creature due to genetic disorders — that changed to evolve it from creature A to creature B. Gene technicques have been in the public domain for 27 years. (Darwin’s finches have been studied and they have not evolved a new gene.) Where can critic see this mountain of data genetic data? Who is collecting it? When can I see it?
Without it, saying that Evolution is as true as the law of gravity is a deliberate lie the public. Why would such a truthful crew as scientists lie like that? Perhaps religious passion for atheism motivates them. Why not just show us the science? The mountain of data? The type that critics are allowed to view.
Firing Scientists for thinking independently will only deplete your side. Why the game?
August 25th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Note: Virus’ do add and remove genes. Even though the definition of a virus as being alive is controversial — even in side biology — I consede that a virus can evolve. (Moon by Moon; Planet by Planet ; Star by Star.) Show me the evolution of the next larger creature. Where is it? Who has it? When will they get it? Does it even exist?
Stick with simple stuff like creatures where genetic change samples might even be obtainable. show me the non-lethal, evolving gene cascade sequence from creature A to B. Do not complain about the size of the number of species. Do you have any idea how many stars and atoms that the theory of gravity must account for?
August 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
“If you need the truth, then he’s a moral coward and an intellectual bully. Like most academic men, he’s terrified of new ideas or anything that challenges what he was taught.”
Anne Perry, “Brunswick Gardens.”
August 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
If Moses was not convinced he got his information directly from “God”, for penning Genesis 1:1, he would otherwise have been considered as great among the ancient world scientists.
To pen a statement of Astrophysics that remains an accurate account of the best synthesis of modern scientific astronometric data without even so much as a telescope for guidance remains an impressive feat.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Let’s get something straight - in applying the scientific method, ONLY microevolution can be observed and proved. There is absolutely NO observable and provable evidence of macroevoultion . . . none.
Now - as far as applying the scientific method to the God of the Bible - who says that CANNOT be observed and proved? There are clear evidences of an Intelligent Designer that science is constantly finding, which in point, proves that there is an Intelligent Designer. One needs only look around to see clearly that there is a designer to all things in nature. On top of this there is historical record and research that goes back centuries (archaeology, paleontology) that have shown the accuracies of the Bible, and therefore the workings of God (therefore His existence).
I find that it is only the people who don’t want to live by the rules that God has set in place to be the only ones who choose to deny God’s existence and an Intelligent Designer.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
What is Darwinism supposed to be, anyway? ‘The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection’ may be a mouthful (which is why it’s usually abbreviated to the ‘Theory of Evolution’), but it’s far more accurate than a term that suggests that people take the works of Charles Darwin - as insightful as they were, for his time - for some kind of canon. Nothing could be farther from the truth! The Origin of Species contains errors - Darwin’s support for the supposed mental superiority of men to women is a good example. More than that, it’s very incomplete, from a modern standpoint - Darwin wrote many years before the nature of DNA was established, for instance.
It may be difficult for someone whose world is based on the assumption that a two-thousand-year-old book is unchanging, absolute truth to understand that there is no such concept in the scientific community.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Resolved Controversy,
Look up ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’. The synthesis of these two concepts should answer your question. Do you have access to a university library?
August 25th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
“academic Biblical community”
oh dear
August 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
#577 DAVESCOT Says:
“academic Biblical community”
oh dear
Tom Aquines sez: Hey Dave! Button your shirt. Your religious bigotry and shallow preconceptions about Christianity are showing.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Evolution and ID are not opposites. Fanatical anti-open minded folks seem to make this mistake incredibly often. I believe in evolution. I’m open to the idea of ID. These don’t contradict.
Maybe some (or even most) folks proposing ID are thinly veiling their disbelief in evolution and belief in a Christian God. It doesn’t follow that intellectual bullying is Ok.
Let’s put a stop to the ridiculous criticism that ID “doesn’t provide a testable hypothesis”. Correctly conceived, ID doesn’t belong in the realm of science. ID is not at the same level as, say, evolution. ID is metaphysics. Science is not equipped to contradict it. Please try to understand this. It’s very basic and easy to comprehend. Note that this does not imply ID does not belong to the realm of logic and reason.
Evolution does not violate ID. ID is metaphysics. Proper ID theories can’t be disputed by science. Please see the work of Christopher Langan for more details. Hint: He is a lot smarter than you.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Emphyrio said:
Will the film present the ID explanation for men having nipples?
Or why whales have pelvises that serve no function, since they don’t walk?
Ben, you’re so smart. You may look back in embarrassment one day for letting these folks flatter you into this.
>>>
This is a gem of a post. Creationism proper and ID don’t deny the possible or actual existence of vestigial organs. Is there something about being an Darwinist that renders people utterly ignorant of the position they are opposing?
Both positions accept that some organs may degenerate under some conditions, like blind cave dwelling or deep ocean dwelling organisms. That’s called adaptation. That’s called microevolution.
How are vestigial organs at odds with special creation? The assumption, I suppose, is that if God was perfect then creation would reflect it. That’s a nonsequitur. Finitude is not an imperfection. Creatures embody a finite mode of existence. They are not deified. It’s not a design flaw if the design was never intended to be as perfect as machine replication.
2. I’d also point out that the whale’s pelvis happens to be considered functional by some Darwinians, like Ridley,who unlike Futuyma, regards the pelvis and femur of whales as function. So, whom are we to believe? Your objection, if true, undercuts Darwinians. Good work!
3. Appeal to vestigial organs turns on the very principle that Darwinians accuse ID theorists of committing: appealing to a “god of the gaps.” In this case, the evolutionist is taking refuge in the Darwin-of-the-gaps.
4. And the very appeal assumes design. Unless one has an idea that the organ has a function and a purpose, then how can one call it “useless?” Distelelogy assumes teleology and vice versa, so, you’re secretly assuming what you are seeking to deny.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
>>>The proponents of ID have packaged their personal religious theories in a way that they claim is compatible with the methods of science
August 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Ben, I ask you to consider Pandeism, the belief that a rational Deistic God created the Universe by becoming a Pantheistic Universe!! In short, the mechana of the Universe were designed, but all of the design took place before the moment of Creation (the Big Bang)…. and everything that science reveals about cosmology, quantum physics, and the multi-billion year process of evolution by natural selection, all of that is evidence of the intelligence behind the Creation not of particular animals plopped on the face of the World, but of the much more elegant and intelligent Creation of rules governing a Universe that is itself designed to suit the organic complexity that permits us to exist!!
I must insist, that if any spiritual basis is to be taught in our schools, it must be Pandeism, for that is the first such system to be driven entirely by rational examination of the World as it is presented to us…. and if ours is any other system but Pandeism, then God is cast as a liar, leaving no distance between God and the devil of popular myth.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
What are the Criteria of Science?:
Science is:
Consistent (internally & externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Is Intelligent Design logically consistent?:
Intelligent Design is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that Intelligent Design has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying Intelligent Design. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for Intelligent Design can really be said to matter.
Is Intelligent Design parsimonious?:
No. Intelligent Design fails the test of Occam’s razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.
Is Intelligent Design useful?:
To be “useful” in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but Intelligent Design is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, Intelligent Design cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and don’t become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that “God did it” in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.
Is Intelligent Design empirically testable?:
No, Intelligent Design is not testable because Intelligent Design violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Intelligent Design relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Intelligent Design provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider “God did it” to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.
Is Intelligent Design based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:
No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Intelligent Design or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Intelligent Design did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Intelligent Design has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Intelligent Design’ists have always been open about this fact.
Is Intelligent Design correctable?:
No. Intelligent Design professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make Intelligent Design look more and more scientific.
Is Intelligent Design progressive?:
In a sense Intelligent Design could be considered progressive if you say “God did it” to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, Intelligent Design is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
Does Intelligent Design follow the scientific method?:
No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the religion. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, Intelligent Design cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.
Do Intelligent Designists think Intelligent Design is science?:
Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific Intelligent Design) admit that Intelligent Design is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says:
“We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.”
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.
Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:
“We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.”
So, even leading Intelligent Designists basically admit that Intelligent Design is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and “verification”) of their ideas. If Intelligent Design is not considered scientific by the movement’s own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?
Simply put INTELLIGENT DESIGN ISN’T SCIENCE!
August 25th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Creationists should not be fooled by the wrong-headed ranting of some on this thread that claim that ID is in fact “creationism”. It is in fact an alternate form of evolutionism that is not “hostile” to the possible outcome that there is “intelligence” SEEN in the architecture and design of living systems.
The “Dover Case” mentioned on this blog is a good example of rank “dark ages censorship” being practiced in favor of atheist-darwinism by puppets of the ACLU.
The Dover board simply stated the following –
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”
For the crime of “ADMITTING” that this book “EXISTED” and for the crime of ADMITTING that atheist darwinism is the guesswork that it in fact IS — the court decided that the plaintiffs were owed 2 million dollars as a way to scare all other schoolboards away from “allowing” Students to be informed about the gaps in darwinism and the open-minded possibility of intellegence that could be SEEN in the architecture and design of living system.s
Ben Stein is simply asserting that these attempts at dark-ages style censorship intended to block open-minded, objective, unbiased study of nature … can not prevail in the long run.
It is to be “expected” that faithful devotees to the beliefs of atheist-darwinism would fervently object with the same devotion that they have shown on this blog!
Nothing new there.
BobRyan
August 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
RESOLVED CONTROVERSY said previously -
“I was under the impression that Intelligent Design was an observation that random chance processes have failed to explain what is going on.
How did we get from that idea to “Liars for Jesus?” Unless, bigogtry is actually going on against theists in the Scientific community.
But, for the critics. The conservation of energy when applied to the big bang requires something other than the universe to be its cause.”
BobRyan Responds –
No need to go so far back to see the utter collaps of the myths story-telling and just plain “bad science” of atheist-darwinism.
Isaac Asimov states clearly that the story-telling that tries to meander through a contrived maze “from molecule to human mind” requires a “massive DECREASE in Entropy” to tell it’s story.
Game over!
BobRyan
August 25th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Michael Einziger wrote
“There is no hiding the religious agenda here. THERE JUST ISN’T ANY HIDING IT…aren’t there places where people of religious faith can get together and discuss their religious beliefs? aren’t those places called churches? Last i checked there was no shortage of churches in this country….in fact, i’m betting this “film” will be played in churches only, that’ll be very telling of the nature of its content…I have no problem with religion, just don’t try and pass it off as scientific.”
What a great comment. If only the blind devotees to the junk-science myths and fairytales of atheist darwinism would take this to heart. If only they could be awakened to understand that their devotion to this mythology belongs in some kind of ocmmunity-clinic or therapy group where they can vent and leave science unbent and unbiased in it’s pursuit of actual facts!!
However what we “see” that many devotees to atheist-darwinism prefer to “imagine” that story telling when it comes to abiogenesis, andve story-telwhen that needs a “massive decreases in entropy” to “come true” should be left to their little special interest group therapy sessions - without having to compromise science to get there.
BobRyan
August 25th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
MattP said
Really? Could you list a few of these rejected proposals? The ID crowd is pretty good at pointing out their supposed oppression, so it shouldn’t be hard to turn up. Also, the leading ID figures say that ID is not a religious proposition. Why would their proposals have anything about God in them?
That should be easy – try the Schoolboard decision to “admit” that a book exists in the Library!!
Here is the language that atheist Darwinist seek to censor —
[b]
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.
“A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
“As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”
[/b]
For the crime of “ADMITTING” that this book “EXISTED” and for the crime of ADMITTING that atheist darwinism is the guesswork that it in fact IS — the “thought police” decided that the plaintiffs were owed 2 million dollars
August 25th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Well Yeah Bobryan and that massive decrease is allowed because the sun our energy supply. Ever heard of solar energy? Derrrrr?
August 25th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
A Perspective on the Relation of Science and Christianity
Let’s put this question of the relationship between science and Christianity with as broadest, most reasonable perspective we can. The relation between science and other intellectual pursuits has not always been easy. Therefore, many feel there has been a terrible warfare between science and Christianity. But I feel this is not the whole story.
For example, the recent literature text by Susan Gallagher and Roger Lundeen says,
Because in recent history, literature has often found itself in opposition to science, to understand modern views about literature the dominance of science in our culture. For several centuries, scientists have set the standards of truth for Western culture. And their undeniable usefulness in helping us organize, analyze, and manipulate facts has given them an unprecedented importance in modern society.
Not everybody has liked that. For example, John Keats, the great romantic poet, did not like Isaac Newton’s view of reality. He said it threatened to destroy all the beauty in the universe. He feared that a world in which myths and poetic visions had vanished would become a barren and uninviting place. In his poem Lamia, he talks about this destructive power. In this poem, he calls “science” “philosophy”, so I will try to replace the word “philosophy” with “science” because that is what he means.
Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold science?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven
We knew her woof and texture.
She is given in the dull catalog of common things.
Science will clip an angels wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air and gnome’s mind,
Unweave a rainbow.
My point is there has been some sparring between science and virtually every other intellectual endeavor. So it should not be entirely surprising if there weren’t a bit of that between science and Christianity.
Has Science Disproved God?
Nevertheless, the position is commonly stated that “science has disproved God.” C. S. Lewis says, in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, that he believed that statement. He talks about the atheism of his early youth and credits it to science. He says,
You will understand that my atheism was inevitably based on what I believed to be the findings of the sciences and those findings, not being a scientist, I had to take on trust, in fact, on authority.
What he’s saying is that somebody told him that science had disproved God and he believe it, even though he didn’t know anything about science.
A more balanced view is this by one of my scientific heroes, Erwin Schrodinger. He was the founder of wave mechanics and the originator of what is the most important equation in science, Schrodinger’s equation. He says,
I’m very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight, knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.
People do tell good stories. Scientists do tell some interesting stories about religion. This one is from Chemistry in Britain, which is kind of like the Time Magazine of they chemical profession in England. Talking about the release of a new book on science policy, they explore an interesting idea.
If God applied to the government for a research grant for the development of a heaven and earth, he would be turned down on the following grounds:
* His project is too ambitious.
* He has no previous track record.
* His only publication is only a book and not a paper in a refereed journal.
* He refuses to collaborate with his biggest competitor.
* His proposal for a heaven and earth is all up in the air.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Plaintiffs arguments in the Dover case
The newer edition states: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly though an intelligent agent … .”
“When we talk about an intelligent designer,” argued plaintiffs’ attorney Eric J. Rothschild, “with the ability to design and create and build biological life, we are talking about God. … Science has no way of proving or measuring supernatural or divine action.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/06/DESIGN.TMP
FLAW in the Plaintiff’s argument (attempts by devotees to atheist darwinism to hide their motives).
The ID argument does not try to measure God or to define how God does something. The point was simply a red herring on the part of the devoted faithful among believers in atheist darwinism.
But in making that statement the faithfull followers of atheist darwinism unwittingly exposed their motives because they are stuck with a distinctively atheist solution to the problem of origins. The problem with ID is NOT that it argues that God created the world in 6 days — (for it does NOT) — the problem with ID is that it ADMITS that naturalism alone can not account for what is SEEN in the lab and that we have experiments to prove it!!
The salient point in the real debate is that Atheism can not SURVIVE if one is allowed to ADMIT to a process, design or architecture that CAN not be solved by naturalism “alone”.
That is IT! That is the single line that atheism will not tolerate and so those who “believe in it” have to censor any thought - and experiment (even to the point of simply ADMITTING that “a book exists in the library”) that would allow student so “consider alternatives” to atheist darwinism!!
How sad!
BobRyan
August 25th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Plaintiffs arguments in the Dover case
The newer edition states: “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly though an intelligent agent … .”
“When we talk about an intelligent designer,” argued plaintiffs’ attorney Eric J. Rothschild, “with the ability to design and create and build biological life, we are talking about God. … Science has no way of proving or measuring supernatural or divine action.”
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/06/DESIGN.TMP
FLAW in the Plaintiff’s argument (attempts by devotees to atheist darwinism to hide their motives).
The ID argument does not try to measure God or to define how God does something. The point was simply a red herring on the part of the devoted faithful among believers in atheist darwinism.
But in making that statement the faithfull followers of atheist darwinism unwittingly exposed their motives because they are stuck with a distinctively atheist solution to the problem of origins. The problem with ID is NOT that it argues that God created the world in 6 days — (for it does NOT) — the problem with ID is that it ADMITS that naturalism alone can not account for what is SEEN in the lab and that we have experiments to prove it!!
The salient point in the real debate is that Atheism can not SURVIVE if one is allowed to ADMIT to a process, design or architecture that CAN not be solved by naturalism “alone”.
That is IT! That is the single line that atheism will not tolerate and so those who “believe in it” have to censor any thought - and experiment (even to the point of simply ADMITTING that “a book exists in the library”) that would allow student to “consider alternatives” to atheist darwinism!!
How sad!
BobRyan
August 25th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Ben,
Some people just can’t understand certain concepts and are only equipped to memorize and not to think critically. I’m sad to see you are in that category. ID is not science.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I will gladly support the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes the day that all churches allow the teaching of evolution in their Sunday school classes.
Intelligent design is not science. It is theology pure and simple. To claim it as anything else is either ignorance or deception. Pick your poison.
Quite simply, the arena for scientific debate should stay in the reputable peer-reviewed journals where it belongs. If ID wants to be taken seriously, it HAS TO EARN IT on that field of battle first. If it can’t survive there it doesn’t deserve further discussion. Except for in Sunday school.
Peace through Reason!
August 25th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
SIGH…..
Craig, whenever an supposed academic debate degrades into unwarranted personal attacks and name-calling, it betrays a certain predjudice or bias on the part of the one attacking. Wry comments and sharp, witty satire are one thing, but I’m not seeing that here. The first blogs here were not calm refutations or well reasoned arguments. They were attacks on the messenger, not the message, as were many others. And, I’m sorry to rebut your remarks so bluntly, but it DOES buttress and reinforce Mr. Stein’s contention of intellectual bigotry and intolerance.
Next, in reference to BSTI’s comments on theology: this was extremely poor exegesis, to be candid. Insasmuch as this isn’t a discussion on Biblical interpretation or review, I won’t go into an involved rebuttal here. However, if you were any further off base, you’d be out of the ball park altogether, I’m aftaid. That’s not said to antagonize, but it’s simply the case. If you prefer, we could discuss your comments point by point in another mutually agreed upon forum, after exchanging e-mail contact info. I’d welcome the chance to clarify the points you brought up.
Just a thought.
DaveScpt says: WE’VE SEEN IT HAPPEN, PAL! Perhaps I’m misreading him here, but I thought this process requires thousands, if not millions, of years for evolutionary development to happen. Yet, he and some other unspecified witnesses have seen or are still watching it occur? Explanation, please. What’s been seen?
August 26th, 2007 at 12:09 am
BobRyan, #584
Why was the Theory of Evolution being treated differently than any other theories? Why was there no similar statement read to the classes about the theories of Gravity, Plate Tectonics, Electromagnetism, Atomics, Relativity, the Germ Theory of Disease, etc?
ALL of those are theories, NONE of them, while strongly supported by multiple studies by many different people and groups, are ‘proven 100%’.
Just as it is impossible to prove that God DOESN’T exist, it’s impossible to prove any of these theories 100%. (You also can’t prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist - it’s impossible to prove a universal negative without being able to scour all of the universe at once.)
You can get the confidence in the theory high enough that you could, for example, calculate gravity and trajectories to send a spacecraft all the way to saturn using almost no fuel, once you’ve gotten out of earth’s gravity well - We’ve done that! You can use Germ theory to make flu vaccines that save millions every year, (We’ve done that too!), but there’s always the possibility that some new theory will better explain why things work as they do.
The fact that the Theory of Evolution was picked out specificly was one of the clear indicators that the reasons behind it were religious, NOT scientific. None of the other theories received even a moment’s notice. Since they didn’t contradict the local religion’s teachings, they were accepted without question and taught as Truth. Evolution was attacked SOLELY for religious reasons, and it was obvious enough to the (Christian, Republican, Bush-appointed) judge that he ruled against the school district.
For the CRIME of trying to push religion into the science classroom, For LYING over and over again about the sources of the money they used to buy the panda books for the school, and for making it patently obvious that none of them knew enough about Evolution OR Intelligent Design to make an informed choice, the school board was fined quite a lot of money. You’d think they’d learn not to do it again! But here you are, trying to defend their actions and rewrite history.
I have yet to see any of the pro-evolution folk saying that ID should be supressed or censored. I’ve seen a lot of ‘We’ll listen as soon as they can show us a testable hypothesis or some peer-reviewed studies.’, but that’s a completely different sort of thing.
Nobody wants the ID folks to shut up, we just don’t intend to give them any respect until they earn it, the same way all the other accepted theories did - with DATA, proper scientific studies, and most of all, a bloody testable hypothesis!
Some of these posters are trying so hard to pick at any flaws. ‘2 out of 500 people said ‘moron’, so you evilutionists are being rude and attacking us!’ This is a blog on the internet. Get a grip. If being called a moron when you demonstrate your ignorance bothers you, LEARN SOMETHING! Expect a bit of incivility from random people on both sides, (we’ve had that!), and try to argue the case on the facts.
When your side learns enough about the scientific method to even present an argument, then perhaps less of us will think of you as morons when you try to claim that you know more than the experts in their fields. Those of you who haven’t read the links provided to talk.origins - if you fail to read the fact presented, yet still claim that your side has the answers while we don’t? You’re morons, plain and simple.
That’s not ad hominem, either! Claiming so just shows us that you don’t understand THAT, either. You parrot nicely though.
‘You are a moron, therefore we can ignore your argument.’
That’s ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of the argument.
‘Your argument fails because X, therefore you are a moron.’
This is NOT ad hominem. This is explaining why your argument fails, thus proving our argument while proving that you’re a moron at the same time, get it? The argument is debunked, the namecalling is just an added bonus.
On the other hand, pointers to any studies, evidence, even so much as a simple ‘This is the ID hypothesis:’ explanation have NOT been provided by the pro-ID crowd.
Why are we supposed to give them the same respect that is accorded to well-researched and never-yet-falsified theories?
August 26th, 2007 at 12:10 am
There is a life after EXPULSION.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
HEY YOU MATERIALIST, where do we come from? The “Big Bang”, where did that originate… out of nothing? Show me one case of modern day macro evolution! Where are the transition fossil? Why do index fossils get excluded when a living one is found? You put more faith into your religion than we do…That’s our bad, we will put more in to God. Thanks for opening our eyes.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am
The Alternatives to Belief in the Sovereign God of the Universe
Lev Landau
I want to give examples of two atheists. The first is Lev Landau, the most brilliant Soviet physicist of this century. He was the author of many famous books with his coworker Lifchets. I actually used some of these books as a student at M.I.T. This is a story about Landau from his good friend and biographer Kolotnikov. This appeared in Physics Today. This is a story from the end of Landau’s life. Kolotnikov says
The last time I saw Landau was in 1968 after he had an operation. His health had greatly deteriorated. Lifchets and I were summoned to the hospital. We were informed that there was practically no chance he could be saved. When I entered his ward, Landau was lying on his side with his face turned to the wall. He heard my steps, turned his head, and said, “Kollat, please save me.” Those were the last words I heard from Landau. He died that night.
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Chandrasekhar was a famous astrophysicist. He won the Nobel prize in physics in 1983. He was a faculty member at the University of Chicago for many years. At the back of his biography is an interview. Chandrasekhar says,
In fact, I consider myself an atheist. But I have a feeling of disappointment because the hope for contentment and a peaceful outlook on life as the result of pursuing a goal has remained largely unfulfilled.
His biographer is astonished. He says:
What? I don’t understand. You mean, single–minded pursuit of science, understanding parts of nature and comprehending nature with such enormous success still leaves you with a feeling of discontentment?
Chandrasekhar continues in a serious way, saying:
I don’t really have a sense of fulfillment. All I have done seems to not be very much.
The biographer seeks to lighten up the discussion a little saying that everybody has the same sort of feelings. But Chandrasekhar will not let him do this, saying:
Well that may be, but the fact that other people experience it doesn’t change the fact that one is experiencing it. It doesn’t become less personal on that account.
And Chandrasekhar’s final statement:
What is true in my own personal case is that I simply don’t have that sense of harmony which I’d hoped for when I was young. I’ve persevered in science for over fifty years. The time I’ve devoted to other things is miniscule.
Is it Possible to be a Scientist and a Christian?
So the question I want to explore is the one that I was asked by that young man after my freshman chemistry class at Berkeley, “Is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian.” The student and his high school chemistry teacher obviously thought it was not possible.
C. P. Snow
Let me begin from pretty neutral ground by quoting two people with no particular theistic inclination. The first one is C. P. Snow. C. P. Snow used to be very famous as the author of a book called The Two Cultures. C. P. Snow was a physical chemist at Oxford University. He discovered about halfway through his career that he also was a gifted writer and he began writing novels. They are about university life in England. One in particular is called Masters, which I would recommend. C. P. Snow became quite wealthy doing this and then he was able to sit in an in–between position, between the world of the sciences and the world of literature.
He wrote this book, which in it’s time was very famous, about the two cultures—the sciences and the humanities. He said statistically slightly more scientists are in religious terms, unbelievers, compared with the rest of the intellectual world, although there are plenty that are religious and that seems to be increasingly so among the young. So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? C. P. Snow, who was certainly not a Christian, said yes.
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman, Nobel prize in physics in 1965, was a very unusual person. He said some 9 years before receiving the Nobel prize, “Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way.” So is it possible to be a scientist and a Christian? Yes according to Richard Feynman.
A good summary statement in this regard is by Alan Lightman, who has written a very well–received book called Origins. He’s an M.I.T. professor who has published this book with Harvard University Press. He says,
References to God continued in the scientific literature until the middle to late 1800’s. It seems likely that the lack of religious references after this time seem more from a change in social and professional conventions among scientists rather than from any change in underlying thought. Indeed, contrary to popular myth, scientists appear to have the same range of attitudes about religious matters as does the general public.
Now one could regard that statement as strictly anecdotal. Americans love statistics. Here’s the result of a poll of the professional society Sigma Zi. Three thousand three hundred responded, so this is certainly beyond statistical uncertainty. The headline says, “Scientists are anchored in the U. S. mainstream.” It says that half participate in religious activities regularly. Looking at the poll is that 43% of Ph.D. scientists are in church on a typical Sunday. In the American public, 44% are in church on a typical Sunday. So it’s clear that whatever it is that causes people to have religious inclinations is unrelated to having an advanced degree in science.
Michael Polanyi
Let go a little deeper with a statement from Michael Polanyi, professor of chemistry and then philosophy at the University of Manchester. His son, John Polanyi, won the Nobel prize in 1986. I think that it’s probably true that when John Polanyi’s scientific accomplishments, which have been magnificent, have been mostly forgotten, his father’s work will continue.
Michael Polanyi was a great physical chemist at the University of Manchester. About halfway through his career, he switched over to philosophy. He was equally distinguished there. His books are not easy to ready. His most influential book is called Personal Knowledge. He was of Jewish physical descent. He was born in Hungary. About the same time he switched from chemistry to philosophy, he joined the Roman Catholic church. He said,
I shall reexamine the suppositions underlying our belief in science and propose to show that they are more extensive than is usually thought. They will appear to coextend with the entire spiritual foundations of man and to go to the very root of his social existence. Hence I will urge our belief in science should be regarded as a token of much wider convictions.
If you read the rest of the book, you will probably make the same conclusion that I make. I’ve concluded that Polanyi is pointing out that the observer is always there in the laboratory. He always makes conclusions. He is never neutral. Every scientist brings presuppositions to his or her work. A scientist, for example, never questions the basic soundness of the scientific method. This faith of the scientist arose historically from the Christian belief that God the father created a perfectly orderly universe.
Now I want to give you some evidence of that.
Science Developed in a Christian Environment
I’d like to begin with an outrageous statement that always causes reaction. This is a statement from a British scientist, Robert Clark. It will make you think. He says,
However we may interpret the fact scientific development has only occurred in a Christian culture. The ancients had brains as good as ours. In all civilizations, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, India, Rome, Persia, China and so on, science developed to a certain point and then stopped. It is easy to argue speculatively that science might have been able to develop in the absence of Christianity, but in fact, it never did. And no wonder. For the non–Christian world felt there was something ethically wrong about science. In Greece, this conviction was enshrined in the legend of Prometheus, the fire–bearer and prototype scientist who stole fire from heaven thus incurring the wrath of the Gods.”
I’d prefer if he had said “sustained scientific development.” I think he’s gone a little too far here, but this will certainly give people something to think about.
Francis Bacon
Let’s explore the idea involved in the statements that Clark and Polanyi made, that is, that science grew up in a Christian environment. I was taught that Francis Bacon discovered thescientific method. The higher critics now claim he stole it from somebody else and just popularized it. We’ll leave that to the science historians to settle.
One of Francis Bacon’s statements is called the two–books statement. It’s very famous. He said:
Let no one think or maintain that a person can search too far or be too well studied in either the book of God’s word or the book of God’s works.
He’s talking about the Bible as the book of God’s words and nature as the book of God’s works. He is encouraging learning as much as possible about both. So right at the beginning of the scientific method, we have this statement.
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Kepler posited the idea of elliptical orbits for planets. He’s considered the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion. He was a devout Lutheran Christian. When he was asked the question “Why do you do science?”, he answered that he desired in his scientific research to obtain a sample test of the delight of the Divine Creator in his work and to partake of his joy. This has been said in many ways by other people, to think God’s thoughts after him, to know the mind of man. Kepler might be considered a Deist based on this first statement alone. But he later said:
I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all refuge and solace.
Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal was a magnificent scientist. He is the father of the mathematical theory of probability and combinatorial analysis. He provided the essential link between the mechanics of fluids and the mechanics of rigid bodies. He is the only physical scientist to make profound contributions to Christian thinking. Many of these thoughts are found in the little book, The Pensees, which I had to read as a sophomore at M.I.T. (They were trying to civilize us geeks at M.I.T., but a few years later decided that it wasn’t working, so we didn’t have to take any more humanities courses.)
Pascal’s theology is centered on the person of Jesus Christ as Savior and based on personal experience. He stated:
God makes people conscious of their inward wretchedness, which the Bible calls “sin” and his infinite mercy. Unites himself to their inmost soul, fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, renders them incapable of any other end than Himself. Jesus Christ is the end of all and the center to which all tends.
Pascal also said:
At the center of every human being is a God–shaped vacuum which can only be filled by Jesus Christ.
Robert Boyle
Robert Boyle was perhaps the first chemist. He developed the idea of atoms. Many of my freshman chemistry students know Boyle’s law. Every once in a while I’ll meet one of my former chemistry students. I ask them “What do you remember from the course?” Occasionally they will say: pv = nrt. Then I know I was successful. This is the ideal gas law of which Boyle’s law is a part.
Boyle was a busy man. He wrote many books. One is The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. He personally endowed an annual lectureship promoted to the defense of Christianity against indifferentism and atheism. He was a good friend of Richard Baxter, one of the great Puritan theologians. He was governor of the Corporation for the Spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England.
Isaac Newton
Although I disagree, a recent poll on who the most important person of history was gave that honor to Sir Isaac Newton. Newton was a mathematician, physicist, co–discoverer with Liebnitz of calculus, the founder of classical physics. He was the first of the three great theoretical physicists. He wrote about a lot of other things. He tried to do chemistry, but was a little bit before his time. He wrote more books on theology than on science. He wrote one about the return of Jesus Christ entitled Observations on the prophecy of Daniel and the Revelation of Saint John. He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
One might assume from this statement that Newton was a Deist (system of natural religion that affirms God’s existence but denies revelation). However, quotes like this shows this is not true:
There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history.
One concludes that Newton was a Biblical literalist. It was not enough that an article of faith could be deduced from Scripture, he said:
It must be expressed in the very form of sound words in which it was delivered by the apostles. For men are apt to run into partings about deductions. All the old heresies lie in deductions. The true faith was in the Biblical texts.
George Trevellian, a secular historian, summarized the contributions of these individuals as follows:
Boyle, Newton and the early members of the Royal Society were religious men who repudiated the skeptical doctrines of Thomas Hobbs. But they familiarized the minds of their countrymen with the idea of law in the universe and with scientific methods of inquiry to discover truth. It was believed that these methods would never lead to any conclusions inconsistent with Biblical history and miraculous religion. Newton lived and died in that faith.
Michael Faraday
My very favorite—and probably the greatest experimental scientist of all—is Michael Faraday. The two hundredth birthday of Michael Faraday’s birth was recently celebrated at the Royal Institution (multi–disciplinary research laboratory in London). There was an interesting article published by my friend Sir John Thomas, who said if Michael Faraday had been living in the era of the Nobel prize, he would have been worthy of at least eight Nobel prizes. Faraday discovered benzene and electromagnetic radiation, invented the generator and was the main architect of classical field theory.
Let me contrast the end of his life with the end of Lev Landau’s life. Faraday was close to death. A friend and well–wisher came by and said, “Sir Michael, what speculations have you now?” This friend was trying to introduce some levity into the situation. Faraday’s career had consisted of making speculations about science and then dash into the laboratory to either prove or disprove them. It was a reasonable thing to say.
Faraday took it very seriously. He replied:
Speculations, man, I have none. I have certainties. I thank God that I don’t rest my dying head upon speculations for “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day.”
James Clerk Maxwell
The second of the three great theoretical physicist of all time would certainly have been James Clerk Maxwell. Someone has documented Maxwell’s career this way:
Maxwell possessed all the gifts necessary for revolutionary advances in theoretical physics—a profound grasp of physical reality, great mathematical ability, total absence of preconceived notions, a creative imagination of the highest order. He possessed also the gift to recognize the right task for this genius—the mathematical interpretation of Faraday’s concept of electromagnetic field. Maxwell’s successful completion of this task resulting in the mathematical [field] equations bearing his name, constituted one of the great achievements of the human intellect.
I disagree with one statement made above. If Maxwell indeed had a total absence of preconceived notions, he would have accomplished a total absence of science. So this is obviously written by somebody who is not a scientist (a squishyhead). However, this statement is basically good.
Maxwell said:
Think what God has determined to do to all those who submit themselves to his righteousness and are willing to receive his gift [of eternal life in Jesus Christ]. They are to be conformed to the image of his Son and when that is fulfilled and God sees they are conformed to the image of Christ, there can be no more condemnation.
Maxwell and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Many wonder what he thought of Darwin’s theories. In fact, once he was to go to a meeting on the Italian Riviera in February to discuss new developments in science and the Bible. If you’ve ever spent time in Cambridge, England, you know it is very gloomy in the wintertime. If I had been a faculty there, I would have taken an opportunity to go to the Italian Riviera at this time of the year.
Maxwell turned down the invitation. He explained:
The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretation. So if an interpretation is founded on such a hypothesis it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.
This is true. An example of this is the steady–state theory, which was popularized by Fred Hoyle and many others. It is one of the two competing theories of the origin of the universe. The steady–state hypothesis basically says that what you see is what was always there. It became less tenable in 1965 with the observation of the microwave background radiation by Arnold Pansias and Robert Wilson. There are not very many people left who believe in the steady–state hypothesis. It is interesting to go back to about 1960 and find commentaries on the book of Genesis and see how they explain how the steady–state hypothesis can be reconciled with the first chapter of Genesis. Any reasonable person can see that Genesis is talking about a beginning from nothing (ex nihilo), so it takes interesting explanations to reconcile a beginning with the steady–state hypothesis.
The steady–state hypothesis is going to be, within about 20 years, gone and forgotten. These commentaries will probably still be available in libraries and no one will be able to understand them.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Tom Aquines sez: Hey Dave! Button your shirt. Your religious bigotry and shallow preconceptions about Christianity are showing.
Thanks Tom. My “shallow preconceptions about Christianity” are just as vald as yours, as neither of us were there and none of it gets reapeated nor confirmed by experiment. Thanks!
August 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Brian Macker,
You’re right, ID isn’t science. It’s metaphysics. It’s a sure bet your misunderstanding stems from other fundamental misunderstandings of the debate here. For example, you don’t also believe that ID contradicts evolution, do you?
August 26th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I’m not aware of ANY branch of science that accepts “a miracle happened here” in its phenomenology. Biology is under a lot of pressure to do exactly that because its findings contradict a literal reading of the Bible and Koran. To those who claim that ID has nothing to do with Abrahamic religion, note that ID’s big guns, Behe and Dembski, are both church-going Christians. Note also that you don’t hear these ID arguments coming from areas of the world that aren’t Abrahamic (Japan, China, etc.). Buddhists and Hindus, in fact, are often quite sympathetic to evolution, as they’re familiar with exceptionally long time frames (measured in “kalpas”), and they have some vague idea that there’s an improvement or learning process going on over history.
Around 50% of the U.S. population believes the earth was created in six days. I suppose Stein, in his quest for fairness and free speech, would like to see 50% of all U.S. university biochemists and biologists profess this belief.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Dear “Ermine” and “Michael”
You want someone to do your homework for you I suppose.
Ok, I apologize to the rest of you for doing this but for the benefit of those who keep slandering the movie and ID without reading anything on the site that actually reflects the true nature of the film or the the links to the articles that describe in detail the injustice that has been bestowed upon certain scientists or the numerous posts on this blog that go into scientific detail about the studies and reasons ID “is” a legitimate science, I will re-post a number of examples of what you fail to read or acknowledge…
To follow…
August 26th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Re-post from Jeff… For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not a science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation:
Jeff | willys36@bak.rr.com | IP: 75.38.86.153 wrote:
Your documentary is highly anticipated Ben. Sounds like it will be spot-on in shedding light on the hatred and vitriol exhibited by the anti-God posters on this blog and in the scientific community in general. I agree, it is an incredible display of politically correct bigotry foisted against honest inquiry.
However it is not unique in history. Have you ever read the book, “The 5 Equations that Changed History”? I read it a few years ago and one thing that emerged from that compilation of mini-bios of the rock stars of science is that every one of them suffered severe distain from mentors, colleagues, and the scientific community in general for their contrary opinions. We ID Neanderthals are not unique in history for being ostracized by the established ‘truths’.
Some angry bloggers here ask for proof if ID. They claim we have NOTHING to base our witchcraft upon. I submit they are working from emotion rather than rational thought. ID has several rock-solid, foundational scientific principles on its side. I know the other side will throw up a deluge of high sounding arguments ‘proving’ I am wrong but that doesn’t change the facts that these principles DEMAND an intelligent designer. I am a 35 year practicing engineer and work with permutations of these laws daily. I’m glad they are there or I couldn’t do my job!!
1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself (if 1/10^50 is commonly accepted as the level of absolute impossibility, the odds of a single very small protein assembling itself is in the range of 1/10^150), let alone complex proteins or a DNA chain.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes gradual evolution of innumerable living constructions.
4. The law of information is absolute proof of intelligent design. These learned men would scoff at anyone claiming the Encyclopedia Britannica (do they still sell those door-to-door or even publish it any longer or is it all on the web now?) spontaneously assembled itself. However they have no problem believing a strand of DNA, a compilation of precise information that makes the Britannica look like a Dr. Seuss book, just decided to come together one day.
Again, there will be a storm of inordinately angry rebuttals to this list (calm discussion of them on a scientific level is not allowed by the other side) but since they are laws, the rebuttals always sound kind of silly don’t you think?
August 26th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Re-post from Dave… For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation, AND that there are no scientists being unjustly treated:
Dave Hawkins Says:
August 24th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Thanks Ben for this project! Much needed. I searched the page for posts about the Rick Sternberg affair and only found Ed Brayton’s pro-Darwinist piece. So I think readers of this blog should hear the other side. Here’s an excerpt from the U.S. House of Representatives Investigation … Read the rest of the excerpt at my blog … http://afdave.wordpress.com
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM DECEMBER 2006
_____________________
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
…
There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: “I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?”3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that “a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.”4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg’s “supervisor”) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message “that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.”5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Re-post from Dave C. For the reading impaired who keep claiming that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation.
Dave C. Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Most of the above seems relatively content-free, but there are some good points. Some of the not-so-good ones:
1) Dover settled it - ID isn’t science! Please - a judge with no scientific credentials copies an ACLU brief, and that’s supposed to have determinative value? Bah.
2) ID isn’t a scientific theory! Sure it is - just because you don’t understand it (or don’t want to) doesn’t mean it isn’t scientific. See below for more detail.
3) Expelled misrepresented itself, so they’re bad people! Possibly true, but irrelevant to the validity of the argument they’re going to make in the movie. Tell me - if 60 Minutes uses a hidden camera, are they automatically wrong?
4) ID makes no predictions! This is really a dumb one. By definition, if you make an assertion, any assertion, its testable in some fashion. Even universal negatives (there are no pink dragons) are testable to some extent (I can test whether there are pink dragons here!) Want to falsify ID? Simply demonstrate something (other than life, which would be begging the question) that gives a false positive as having been designed, when it wasn’t.
5) Ken Miller (et. al.) is religious and not-persecuted, so you’re wrong! Uh, guys, the movie is about people who object to materialistic Darwinism and allow the possibility of a religious element as having active involvement - not about people who happen to be religious but believe in a non-participatory God (aka Miller).
6) Abiogenesis is not relevant to Evolution! Phah - Evolution’s foundation is that only materialistic explanations are allowed. If it requires God to create the first life, there’s no longer a valid reason to exclude Him from the rest of the process either. Either everything that happened from “big bang” is explained by naturalistic processes, or you can no longer exclude non-naturalistic processes from any given point.
Back to my assertion that ID is a scientific theory. In my words, ID says this: “It is possible to determine whether an object is the result of natural, non-directed processes, or the result of intelligent design and directed processes, by measuring the complexity of the entity”.
Interestingly enough, ID isn’t necessarily or even essentially about life, or origins. If ID didn’t carry implications for Neo-Darwinian Evolution, the same scientists who are so frenetic to discredit it now would probably applaud the science/math behind it. Basically, all ID says is that design requires a designer - and that it is possible to measure/detect design. Unfortunately for both Evolution and ID, life appears designed. So - either Materialistic Evolution which says life is undesigned is wrong, or ID which says that design requires a designer is wrong. Neither side would disagree that Life appears designed.
So - where do we, and will we, see resolution? What predictions does ID make that differentiate it from Evolution? One such would be “Junk”, or undesigned elements to life. For some time, it was believed that most (upwards of 90%) of human DNA was unnecessary - remnants of the random evolutionary process. This would certainly imply ID was wrong - why would a designer put worthless elements in the base code of life? Current scientific thought is, however, that DNA is not only not mostly “junk”, but almost entirely functional (even if non-coding). Now evolutionists may (and have) argue that Darwinian processes have filtered out the worthless DNA (evolution is ultimately flexible - everything can be explained, and therefore nothing is), but ID theory is clearly supported by the findings.
As for the argument that no scientists use ID theory - nonsense. Ever hear of Biomimetics? Scientists use the Design they find in life to help them improve our technology. This is inherently relevant to ID - you wouldn’t copy the design of something that wasn’t designed, would you?
I’m a YEC, myself, so I have a dog in this fight only so far as I certainly see the design of life as evidence for a designer. And, as a YEC’er, let me give you some scientific predictions using my Theory of origins.
1) Abiogenesis will not be solved. Scientists will never be able to “create life”, even using intelligent intervention in a lab
2) Within the next 10 years, DNA will be found in more fossilized remains of creatures supposedly 100’s of millions of years old.
3) No experimental process will ever be able to mutate a species beyond a certain boundary (years of experiments with mutated bacteria will result only in - a mutated version of recognizably the same bacteria, not a new type of bacteria).
4) Increased research will increase our understanding of the complexity of life, and find complexity that we don’t currently recognize (e.g. the light pathways recently found in human’s “inverted” retina)
5) Gene sequence comparisons and molecular phylogenies will only further muddy the “tree of life”
6) SETI remains a colossal waste of time and effort
7) Improvements in technology will allow new telescopes to take pictures of “20Billion-year-old” galaxies, in our “14Byo” universe.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain the ultimate Fudge Factor.
9) Evolution Research will remain mired in “just-so-stories” and gene sequence comparisons, because any interesting experimentation that might prove evolution possible (as opposed to “true” which is not possible with a historical science) lead to dead ends (e.g. Miller’s OOL experiment).
9) We’ll still be having these same conversations, with noone’s opinions much changed.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Re-post from Jacob Evilsizor, For the reading impaired who keep claimin that ID is not science based or that it only has the Bible as it’s foundation.
Jacob Evilsizor Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Ben,
Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.
What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.
Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.
Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.
Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.
So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…
For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
August 26th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Last but not least from Jacob Evilsizor for the reading impaired:
Jacob Evilsizor Says:
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Ben,
Congratulations on your courage to come out and publicly stand up for what you believe in. Truly that is a rarity in Hollywood to say the least.
What many of the “willingly ignorant” here are in fact doing, is a proving the point of just how effective the indoctrination method works on humans from a very young age. The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.
Never mind that there are many scores of contradictory evidence that defy evolution; because the definition of evolution is so ambiguous, it can literally mean anything from the obscure “change over time” to “change in allele frequency of an organism due to genetic drift and natural selection via mutational variation compounded over millions of years to form increasingly complex entities of organizational matter.” Notice how much wiggle room there is in-between those two descriptions? Subsequently, evolution duplicitously disguises itself as science using a tactic known as bait ‘n’ switch. Bait ‘n’ switch is a tactic oft used by salesmen to get a prospective customer to buy into one thing by luring them in with something completely different. The salesman is the evolutionist, the promised item is natural selection, and the resultant product is molecules-to-man evolution. People buy into it all too easily, because we as a society have been conditioned not to question science for any reason. The truth is that natural selection is an ingenious design application allowing creatures to adapt to their environment, but it is always represented by an inherent loss of functional genetic information. This means that it can never “create” organisms of higher complexity, because this requires a massive increase in DNA coding language needed to direct new proteins.
Mutations have the same problem because they also do not increase the net information content of DNA. Predominantly, mutations are either neutral or detrimental. For the most part, mutations caused by radiation exposure are seriously life threatening because the information structure (which is highly organized in the DNA molecule) is vital to a healthy, functioning cell, and radiation causes disorder and destruction within the cells. The only examples of beneficial mutations caused by radiation are in comic books. Mutations are also caused by the loss and scrambling of necessary genetic information due to copying errors in processes such as gene duplication/replication and polyploidy, but are never represented by an increase in functional genetic information content. On rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial, such as beetles losing their wings on a windy island where they might otherwise be blown out to sea. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the occurrence of beneficial mutations is sparse; but even given this arcane event in nature, and considering the result of gene duplication and polyploidy (which is subsequent to photocopying a page out of a book), we still have yet to witness an increase in the overall genetic information content of a single organism.
Evolution works on the idea of random changes. But in the case of DNA, these changes are only good if they add not just information, but specific information in a coherent, structured fashion. In the case of a human being, that would be about 3 billion base pairs. And don’t forget that the genetic information is useless unless there are specific proteins that they are coding for in the first place. After all, what is the point of a coding mechanism if it has nothing to code for? Because the fundamental changes to DNA that evolution requires are ones that both are conducive to survival, and fundamentally increase functional genetic information that is specific and coherent to the DNA coding procedure. A simple example to illustrate my point might be: if you have the word CAT, and you randomly add characters to it, you cannot arrive at the word CATCHER unless you have specific letters that make the word coherent and meaningful. This does not even take into account the fact that this particular word, and the letters that are used in it, are both part of a structured, intelligently designed language system called English. Incidentally, if you add random Arabic letters to the end of CAT, you are never going to get the word CATCHER, in one coherent language. It just isn’t possible. And remember with something like human DNA, you are talking about literally billions of letters that together create a coherent, functioning coding mechanism (language) necessary for life.
So if evolutionists cannot produce a viable mechanism for evolution that produces a single example of increased functional genetic information content, much less the astronomical increases that would be necessary to go from a single-celled organism to a human being containing over 100 trillion cells, DNA with over 3 billion base pairs of complex coding language, as well as the synthesized proteins which they code for to do specific jobs, and a brain with over 100 billion neurons, each with tens of thousands of individual synaptic connections, which functions around the clock from the time you are in the womb to the time you die, controlling hundreds of necessary biological systems within your body without a single thought; and yet they emphatically and dogmatically claim “tons of evidence” to support their so-called theory that cannot be subjected to the scientific method; has a history of hoaxes that are used as factual evidence for literally decades at a time; proclaims every single fossil discovery as a missing link or transitional fossil without contention or debate; uses bogus dating methods that cannot accurately date objects of a known age, and yet they claim that the results they get for objects of unknown age are incontrovertible (while simultaneously admitting that the method depends on certain unverified assumptions); ignores the fact that written human history only goes back 4-6 thousand years, and ignores the fact that the Bible is a written account of human history that is supported archeologically on many levels; ignores dozens of specimens of dinosaur soft-tissue and mummified dinosaurs (Google it), dogmatically proclaiming that dinosaurs died 65-68 million years ago; ignores the Cambrian Explosion which contains almost every major phyla of animal, yet Pre-Cambrian rock does not present any examples of ancestors of diminishing complexity at all; cannot produce a viable explanation for the initial “creation” of life (abiogenesis) without invoking aliens or a creator, and yet cannot concede that complexity warrants design (as is logical), and that the same creator that started life (if they concede an ambiguous creator) could have done it just how He said He did in a written account of history; will not consider other viable theories such as Flood geology to explain billions of fossils worldwide (fossils are quite rare occurrences except in catastrophic conditions, i.e. a flood) including mass fossil graves; dogmatically pushes a phony geologic column that is not found in whole in any one place on earth (only in textbooks), and ignores polystrate fossils that cut through several layers of strata that are supposedly separated by millions of years, as well as tightly bent rock strata that support the flood theory; deceitfully fabricate characteristic of extinct apes like Lucy to make them look like humans (because they don’t have any real transitional fossils), such as adding human facial features, and also human hands and feet to pictures and models, even though the specimen had long, curved, ape-like fingers and no feet; ignores the concept of irreducible complexity a priori, because the concept infers an intellectual injection of cause and reason into an arbitrary and meaningless process that has no motivation to surpass boundaries or benchmarks in any pseudo-creative endeavor as is implied by evolution; ignores the concept of physical laws (gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.) that govern our universe and support our reality with mathematical inductive reasoning and logical structure (which imply an intelligent architect); and pretty much denies logical reasoning and common sense observation altogether, replacing them instead with ad hominem attacks, character-assassination, and virulent name-calling. But decide for yourself…
For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
August 26th, 2007 at 1:42 am
I find it amusing that an actor seems to think that he is a higher authority on what is good science than the scientists themselves. I can think of only 1 who can actually credible opinion on the subject of ‘good science’.
Lets assume that the credibility of one’s critique on science is completely irrelevant to his/her background.
So if I were to apply Stein’s rant regarding the suppression of academic freedom in the sciences to other fields of acadamia, I can state the following:
1) 4x^2 - 6x +14 =0
Where x= 521
2) Christopher Columbus discovered America, and was the Indians best friend. He helped the Indians win their war against Frederick Douglas, and freed the Hebrews from
Napoleon, and discovered France.
3) 1 M HCl is safe to drink because it is has a neutral pH concentration.
4) The world and the universe was created by Thor, Galactus, and a race of omnipotent beings who we perceive as mice who can simultaneously inhabit this dimension and a dimension higher than our own. That we perceive our universe the way it is, be it science, math, religion, and etc, is all guided by these omnipotent mice.
With that said, if we allow a type of academic freedom that Stein so strives for, than all the above comments should be taken into serious consideration without suppression and/or ridicule. Either that, or you’re a hypocrite. If you want to apply a paradigm of thought to one level of academia why not apply it to all fields whether it be science, math, or religion. You can’t be discriminatory now.
I am primarily annoyed that there is an assumption that any statements regarding science ( or any academic field) should be considered seriously without any kind of peer review, or else you’re considered a fascist. If that was the case then:
“There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, …..”
- Ben Stein
Because everyone is trying to come up with what can happen, while people who say ” no that can’t happen”, would ( under Stein’s view of academic freedom) be vilified. Figuring out what can’t happen is just as important as what will most likely happen.
We have the freedom to say all the little examples I made above, thats OK. But ultimately 1+1 does not = 3, 1M HCl will dissolve my trachea, and the fourier coeffs of *insert any periodic function* will not be the numbers of my birthdate, no matter how much I call my teacher a closed minded god hating atheist.
Notice how I have not even mentioned ID, god, or creationism….. well up till that last sentence. If the inclusion of any kind of supernatural being and/or the “God Variable” will make science easier and more accurate, scientists would have done so. Hell I would’ve done it if it meant keeping myself from doing a multiple page proof involving the Kronig-Penny model.
For example:
F= dp/dt= m*(dv/dt)+ v*(dm/dt)+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’
for constant mass ‘m’ F= m*(dv/dt)+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’
F= m*a+ ‘INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’
So what does ‘ INTELLIGENT DESIGNER!!’ contribute to Newton’s 2nd law that makes it more accurate than the good ol’ F=m*a ( assuming aforementioned m=constant).
The answer: Nothing. Nothing more, nothing less then what is already known. It doesn’t tell what happened, will happen, and what can’t happen. So what can be done with it? NOTHING.
I need a beer now…
August 26th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Darwinists at George Mason University, Ohio State, Baylor, SMU, University of Idaho, the Smithsonian Institution and a number of other universities and research centers have been hunting down and trying to disgrace and intimidate scientists and educators for daring to defy the Darwinian orthodoxy. Most recently we saw the witch hunt return to Iowa State University and focus on astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.
• The National Center for Science Education sent out a letter urging all 50 state governors to restrict teaching the controversies of Darwinian evolution.
• The Ohio State Board of Education was pressured by the ACLU to repeal its Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan and revert to teaching only those items which support Darwinism, essentially censoring the state’s science teachers from expressing any criticism of Darwinian evolution at all.
• Chemistry professor Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture on scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.
• Law professor Francis Beckwith had his tenure challenged at Baylor University because he had expressed a professional opinion that it was constitutionally acceptable to teach intelligent design in public school classrooms.
• Three days before graduate student Bryan Leonard’s dissertation defense was to take place, Darwinist professors at Ohio State University accused Leonard of “unethical human-subject experimentation” because he taught students about scientific criticisms of evolutionary theory.
• High school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school simply because he wanted his students to learn about both sides of the scientific debate over Darwinian evolution.
• Biology professor P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota wrote this about anyone supporting intelligent design or even just questioning modern evolutionary theory: “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.”
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope Stein can use Expelled like an ice cutter to break through. Scientists and educators deserve all the protection and support they can get.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/new_ben_stein_flick_expelled_b.html#more
August 26th, 2007 at 3:51 am
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.”
Thomas Aquinas
August 26th, 2007 at 3:52 am
“Beware of the person of one book.”
Thomas Aquinas
August 26th, 2007 at 3:56 am
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Thomas Aquinas
August 26th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Javascript, you win. I will now convert to young earth Christianity. How could anyone possibly compete with such long, paragraph-free posts, and well-established “laws of information” and “laws of irreducible complexity”? You’re a real trooper for Jesus. Keep up the good work.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:48 am
While there is no tangible evidence for a living God, it is unthinkable that one would even dream of denying a past presence for one or more such entities. Yet that is exactly what such compulsive atheists as P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins continue so arrogantly to proclaim. Several months ago I managed to introduce on RichardDawkins.net forum the following thread for discussion -
“God or Gods are dead but must have once existed.”
During about a week it attracted over 60,000 views after which I was summarily terminated along with my viewing rights to his forum. I achieved a similar honor at ARN and have been banned from all the major forums with the exception of ISCID’s “brainstorms” where I am still allowed to hold forth. While I am a Creationist, I have rejected both the Darwinian and the Christian Fundamentalist camps, which apparently is the primary reason I am anathema to both. I welcome any comments at “brainstorms, here, or anywhere else. I will probably not respond to anonymous posters. A person who cannot put his name to his words is a coward. The internet teems with such. It should never have been permitted.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 26th, 2007 at 6:44 am
I’m really excited about this Ben! I’m promoting it on my website and I hope that interview the right guys.
For what’s is worth, the Bible actually says that this is a sinking ship. Regarding belief in God, it says that those who are wise in their own esteem are also ‘willingly ignorant’… or ‘dumb on purpose’ when it comes to the topic of God.
I pray that this film will make it a little bit more difficult though!
August 26th, 2007 at 7:44 am
The pontificating ignorant comments on here by pseudo scientists who rabidly defend their government sponsored education, income and basis for piss poor policy decisions just beats all. But then again when they look at the stars in the sky and fail to see intelligent design, they are not only showing their ignorance, but sealing their eternal fate, for as God’s own word says, they will be without excuse- for they truly are denying his eternal power and the essence of what he is.
I’ve been “in” heaven and I’ve “seen” God- or at least I could see his form: he was wearing the stars of the entire universe as his vest. I can assure you when this happened to me, I felt no need for the approval of nor any use for the current dogma of the government owned scientific community. In fact, that community and their government sponsors have made themselves out to BE God, an error that is clearly folly to those of us who have been enlightened by the one who spoke the universe into existence based on HIS intelligent design.
Get over it folks, he made you too, gave you a free will and a mind that is unhindered. Every single one of you knows that you have zero ability to control anything once you exhale HIS air from your lungs for the last time, however I can tell you this for certain: On that day you WILL bow down and acknowledge that he IS what he has already shown you and told you he his.
Enough of your small minded, black and white “scientific method and nothing eles” thinking. That’s what has given us all of your wonderful gifts like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
And as for the religious right who prostitute yourselves for positions of power in the USA, your arrogance and pseudo knowledge of God has earned us the specifics of Revelation chapter 18. Go ahead and call me a zealot and a quack. At least I’m an expert in the field you have willing chosen to pretend you understand…and I’m about done with interceding for his mercy to cover your filthy, selfish, wars of conquest, etc, because God is about fed up with listening to me about it.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:45 am
The Christians have been invoking the “methinks you doth protest too much” argument more than I’ve ever seen. Call it the “Ted Haggard Effect”.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I’m sure there are good, well thought out arguments that are pro-Intelligent design but the fact is the integrity and merit of this movie has been under-cut when your producers LIED to interviewees on the nature of this movie.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php
This is a blogger that after being lied to about the movie he was interviewing for is then praised of being “confronted” in your press release.
Absolutely dishonest and appalling. I wouldn’t believe a single word said in this movie now because its very obvious that its going to be extremely bias. So great job at promoting and shelling out the bigs bucks for a giant piece of propaganda.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I produced a 2-hour documentary on the Kansas Science Hearings. In fact, 23 witnesses testified over 4 days and gave proof of Intelligent Design. You will not doubt Ben Stein’s credibility after you view it.
For a DVD, send $20 to:
New Liberty Videos
P.O. Box 25662
Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662
August 26th, 2007 at 7:58 am
[…] Ben Stein is now officially one of the most hated people in America… …and since he’s not a criminal, he has become one of my mostest favoritest people in America. […]
August 26th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Brian S. Says:
August 25th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
“I will gladly support the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes the day that all churches allow the teaching of evolution in their Sunday school classes.”
Bobryan responds:
This is another sad example of just how far in the dark our atheist darwinist friends are lagging behind reality.
The sad truth is that the vast marjority of Christian institutions TEACH EVOLUTIONISM!! (that would be Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal and many others)
The sad truth is that EVEN ID is most often presented as just ANOTHER form of EVOLUTIONISM!
So “now” let’s “see” if the atheist darwinist argument that they could ever be talked into being open minded is true. …. waiting….
hmm “didn’t happen”
How “unnexpected”
Brian says:
“Intelligent design is not science. It is theology pure and simple.”
Only an atheist would argue that point since any admission that architecture and design SHOWS intelligence destroys the religion of atheism.
But that the fact that atheism relies on bogus arguments - does not invalidate the fact that intelligence CAN be detected in architecture and design. The “issue” is whether or not to admit to the design that we SEE in nature.
[quote]
Quite simply, the arena for scientific debate should stay in the reputable peer-reviewed journals
[/quote]
Been there done that. The PROBLEM is that atheist like to “redefine peer-review” to mean “atheist-peer” or “darwinist-peer” and “no other peer”.
Sad bit of censorship on their part - but glaringly obvious to the unbiased objective reader.
BobRyan
August 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Creationists seems to have short memory (Dover)
I hope mentioned universities will sue Ben’s ass off.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I still haven’t seen what the ID hypothesis is and how the “many” scientists that support it intend to test it.
I mean, if it’s science, where’s the hypothesis?
The once common thread of the Anti-Evolution League… they all believe in god.
Something for which there is no evidence. When the AEL are confronted with piles of evidence for evolution they ignore it.
They can’t even agree on how old the earth is.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:52 am
BobRyan:
Scientists can and do acknowledge that there are unsolved questions out there - that is why we still have working scientists.
“I don’t know” is a legitimate response to questions about such unsolved problems. On the other hand “Goddidit” is not a legitimate scientific response. Accepting a supernatural explanation rather than continuing to formulate hypotheses and seek new data is counterproductive to advancement of knowledge.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:03 am
esaskar, When working scientists in relevant fields do not recognize the “controversies of Darwinian evolution” you refer to, what business do public school teachers have teaching their students otherwise? None. If you want to teach something as science, you first need to convince scientists, not school children.
And when people are not competent, they should be taken to task.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Tom Aquines said:
“Dave Mc is an atheist dressed up as an intellectually bankrupt blogger.”
Dave Mc says: Actually that’s quite funny
…
While I can safely say that this is about as much blogging as I have ever done, it is rather presumptuous of you to call me an atheist, don’t you think? Is it that obvious from my entries?
Not like me calling you “The quotemaster” since you haven’t come up with anything original in this blog.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Wow, there is a lot of venom being spewed here. Why all the anger and hate talk? If you aren’t interested then don’t watch it….vote with your feet - there is no need to slam someone just because he/she doesn’t agree with your values/beliefs.
It is, after all, just a movie looking at suspected supression of an alternative view. No one is saying Ben is a scientist - he’s just investigating whether individuals are being silenced for a opinion that contradicts evolution, which is also just “a theory”.
Science is after all the process of proving theories so, one would hope that these scientists can be allowed the same freedom to explore their theories and maybe change how we view things. What is the scientific community afraid of - do they think that by allowing research on ID that evolutionists will be out of a job? If they feel in their core that evolution is true and they believe they have proved it then they should welcome a challenge. Stir up some debate - make it interesting….
Just my opinion!
August 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Yikes!
Ben, I respect your economic views and your concerns over freedom of inquiry. And if academic freedom is being curtailed and power abused, we should object.
But from an economic point of view, how do you propose that public resources be allocated for scientific research? If we don’t rely on experts, on whom should we rely to allocate resources? (Thomas Kuhn became famous for showing how worthy but unpopular theories (like Einstein’s) eventually overturn the previous orthoxy or “paradigm”, so there is historical evidence that the “truth will out.”
Evolution is a lively scientific discipline with lots of controversy. There is plenty of criticism of current evolutionary theory that is funded and published.
The “ID” criticisms that I have read are unimpressive and not among those taken very seriously. I would not give them scarce public resources for research nor would I do so by including them in curricula.
If private resources are spent on these ideas, I have no objection, but please don’t advocate spending my money on third-rate science (that happens enough without encouragement). If Ben Stein’s Money is allocated to the “ID” proponents, you are of course FREE to do so.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Natural selection is a bogus theory and has never been proven. Show me, please, where a “new” animal has ever been produced by such a thing!
Many kinds of dogs, roses and other things have been “created” by man, but NONE of them are a different animal or plant! God’s Word plainly states that everything will produce offspring like itself. Hybrid fruits will also not reproduce normally but require constant human intervention to survive. Where it is successful to merge two kinds of animals (donkey + horse) it is only because those animals are from the same family that an offspring is produced. But…the offspring is sterile! So much for evolution.
Evolution is a theory still. It has never been proven! So, based on the logic of some comments, we should also reject evolution as faulty science. When we see a completely new animal arise from “natural selection(not a mutant that cannot reproduce!) maybe this theory will carry some weight. And when someone can explain to me how a microbe, who couldn’t detect light, decided there was light and therefore needed to produce eyes, I’ll listen. Or how evolution, which supposedly builds things haphazardly and keeps those things it finds useful could produce an ear (made up of many very precise parts) when the many parts cannot function to any purpose by themeselves? Why would an eardrum form without an accompanying stirrup or anvil, or cochlea? How would a developing organism design such a complicated things without having first worked out the details BEFORE “mutating” into a workable protoype at least?
Intelligent design is behind everything and those who refuse to see it are blinding themselves to truth. Let’s see any one who believes in evolution invent a new primary color, a way to read other’s thoughts (surely we should have evolved past needing ears by now, wouldn’t you think?) or a new sense.
Evolution is a science designed for the express purpose of assuaging men’s minds who do not want to believe in a Creator.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
[…] and have friends in that community. It was PZ Myers who alerted me to this latest outrage by the Christianist wingnuts. I’ll go to see the movie just to see how they twist PZ’s words, he’s interviewed […]
August 26th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
THERE’S NO ID THEORY! GOD DID IT IS NOT A THEORY.
Evolution IS THE ALTERNATIVE to the ancient idea of a creator.
ID isn’t new or even original.
I keep asking, but never get, what the hypothesis is or how they plan to test it.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Steve Foltz once again proves the ignorance of some religious people.
Evolution is theory AND a fact. Just like gravity.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Do I expcet Foltz to read it, or even understand it? Not really.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I wish that it was possible for you to challenge indoctrinated science with even the smallest ounce of credibility. I would give much more respect if you could be objective and analytical about your dissension. Unfortunately, the only people you can name as your allies are a self absorbed rock star, a scientist who did not believe in a personal god, and someone from the 16th century who predated Darwin and his ideas by about 200 years. Really, is there anyone at all with even the smallest bit of credibility involved with this piece of sensationalist trash?
August 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Gwyn,
No. Science is not about “proving theories”. Nothing is ever proven in science. As the saying goes - “proof” is a valid concept in math and alcohol. Science is about seeking data that supports or falsifies hypotheses.
And developing a theory is the highest goal of science.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I believe that a tornado, given enough time and materials, can swirl around in a junkyard and put together a Mercedes-Benz. (p.s. I am also an evolutionist).
August 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I’ve been promoting this movie in message boards I frequent. Already, this movie is stirring up a lot of dust.
I’m happy that this issue is going to be on everybody’s lips. Hopefully, more and more people will get brave and stop following the crowd and look at the evidence for themselves.
It took me over forty years, but I looked at the evidence for myself, and I changed my life, hence my screen name.
X
August 26th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Science is not like literary criticism where multiple differing opinions can be valid. Except for the leading edge of science where data is still limited and alternative hypotheses are being evaluated, science is about selecting the best explanation and discarding the rest.
After all, we do not give equal time to the geocentric and heliocentric views of the solar system to school children and ask them to pick the one they like best.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Having been one of those interviewed for this movie [it remains to be seen if my footage doesn’t end on the cutting room floor], I would like to offer a clip from a 6-part half-million dollar, nationally televised series which featured some of the names in Ben’s movie.
The movie features Dr. Crocker (who was in the Expelled preview), Ed Sisson, and myself:
See:
http://tinyurl.com/mtay5
Whether ID is ultimately right or wrong is not the real issue. The real issue is whether it is permissible to explore ID after one has realized that Darwinism has failed as scientific explanation.
The issue is one of freedom of inquiry, and the fact that Darwinist dogma is just plain bad for business, bad for science, and bad for humanity.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The most damning thing I’ve observed thus far, is not only how rabidly the religious people on this blog have pushed for I.D, but how they co-mingled the term ‘I.D’ to their christian god, when the whole original purpose of I.D was to describe speciation without having to invoke any kind of religious undertones. Thank you for proving what scientists have been saying about I.D ever since it’s inception; It’s Creationism in sheep’s clothing.
-”This is another sad example of just how far in the dark our atheist darwinist friends are lagging behind reality.
The sad truth is that the vast marjority of Christian institutions TEACH EVOLUTIONISM!! (that would be Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Episcopal and many others)
The sad truth is that EVEN ID is most often presented as just ANOTHER form of EVOLUTIONISM!”
Strawman. Accredited Christian institutions that teach evolution, teach the subject in classrooms. However, they do not teach evolution during Mass or Sunday Prayer. Which they should be required to do if they attempt to push creationism in science classes.
“So “now” let’s “see” if the atheist darwinist argument that they could ever be talked into being open minded is true. …. waiting….”
Last I checked, people who attempted to preach a wiccan’s view on creation would be escorted out of a Christian Church. Here’s an example of christian open mindedness
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_065160805.html
“But that the fact that atheism relies on bogus arguments - does not invalidate the fact that intelligence CAN be detected in architecture and design. The “issue” is whether or not to admit to the design that we SEE in nature.”
Stupidity is actually observed in nature. Almost as if it were a random process. Anyone who has studied biology or engineering even, basically someone actually qualified because they had spent many years studying about the subject rather than flipping through literary science magazines haphazardly, can point out severe biological and structural flaws in nature. I mean, why the hell would anyone in their right mind design a biological entity to have their passageway for breathing and swallowing food, share the same entryway?
Steve Fotz wrote:
“Evolution is a theory still. It has never been proven! ”
Gravity is a theory but we know it occures. Electricity and magnetism is a theory but anyone who wrapped a coil of copper around a magnet, while connected to a lightbulb sees the E/M theory occuring. The semiconductors that are in your computer right now, which allows this form of communication, is based off of solid state physics which is based on quantum theory. None of the theories above have never been proven, true enough. But its damn accurate enough for people to build computers or any kind of electronic devices for that matter.
August 26th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I have tried, so very hard, reading as many of these responses, to stay unbias and open-minded to the concepts and arguments presented on both sides of the debate.
But frankly, you guys have not been making it easy.
Pro ID: I already had concerns unaddressed about how we went from molecules to humans that may or may not be later addressable, which I have been reminded about.
I have also already wondered about the concepts of ‘Big Bang’ and that which came with it that I hadn’t concerned myself with addressing that you are.
Lastly I have already put thought into the being many refer to as ‘the creator’ though my theories on the matter differ greatly from many others.
Pro Evolution:
‘natural selection’ is pretty obvious, and something that over time we are weening out simply because being ‘naturally selected’ no longer sits well with humans.
The prospect of an intelligent creator creating us is at this point as likely as atoms forming some gloop that would become a human later on, at this point in time.
Con both sides:
You’re acting childish, resorting to mockery, satire, name-calling and flat out “I’m not listening lalalala!!” on both sides.
I found this worst when one particular responder, when faced with evidence that the prospect behind ID was not what he had been advertising, chose to flat-out ignore it, since “its not addressed in this film.”
When it comes to what IS advertised in this film, namely the discrimination of those who support ID, I agree they shouldn’t be treated badly for their beliefs. We should be well beyond that level of mockery, especially with the intelligence level of scientists. Mockery and satire is what I expect of teenagers in a playground. We are not teenagers in a playground (most of us) and shouldn’t resort to such low-level absurdity. Those who feel they have to resort to such levels should be ashamed.
Now, I have looked into ID, as, curiously, I’ve only recently come across the subject. Now, I have a few questions in regard of the subject:
QUESTION 1:
Are ID and Creationism separate? If so, how so? Is it that one includes God (Creation) and the other does not (ID)? If this is the case, how does this mean those supporting the Creationism are winning this argument, if what they are specifically trying to advertise is not up for debate? And if ID is nothing to do with religion, why do so many people seem to keep referring back to it? Especially when later people will again turn around and say “Its got nothing to do with religion.”
QUESTION 2:
WHAT DOES ID STAND FOR?!?
Is it really just there to try and disprove evolution? Why? What on Earth does it matter? Why are you not out and proving what makes your theories sound, like the evolutionists have with fossils and whatnot?
QUESTION 3:
What makes ‘intelligent selection’ (the survival of the better design) and ‘natural selection’ (the survival of the better ‘design’) different? How is this helping you and not the evolutionists, especially since you seem to seek to keep them so far apart?
QUESTION 4:
How does the intelligent designer or diety change us over time to adapt to circumstance? It is clear this happens or we wouldn’t have different races of people at the least. If it isn’t through the evolution of freaky-runt mishaps in DNA that turn out to be stronger than the masses, then what causes it instead? How is our design re-shaped, especially if we cannot see it shaping us? By which I mean there doesn’t appear to be a giant hand that tweaks us to make us who we are. So what does?
QUESTION 5:
How/why does this creator exist? Its not enough for one like myself to hear there is a diety we cannot see… as to quote Deedee from Dexter’s lab “You can’t see air, but we know THAT exists.”
So how does one begin finding out how this diety or designer works? How do we test to see HOW this diety changes us? WHY does this diety see fit to change things that may, as happens in life, in fact hinder us instead of help us develop, and lead to an extinct species? How does this Diety/designer exist outside of our knowledge? Why does he not present himself to us?
QUESTION 6:
Is science used to prove ID as a science?
I ask because from the responses in this blog it would appear not. I see maths (which is fair), philosohpy (which is less so) and a type of psuedo-science that means nothing (which is not right) being used to explain how ID works, but I haven’t seen biology, chemistry or physics used in the way of explanation as of yet. I imagine ways wouldn’t be hard to find.
I will bring up here as well, how does the ‘proof’ system work exactly? Like many of the other 600+ responders I have seen people mention tests that have not gained funding but not seen any evidence or outlines of the tests that are being rejected which could potentially prove ID. So I wonder if someone could help me on that?
QUESTION 7:
This is not so nice a question.
If the concept of ID is to be taken seriously, why did the people running this lie to the interviewees about the premise behind it? I just don’t see a valid reason for the dishonesty.
Added to that, how does generalising everyone against ID as atheist help the cause, either? This doesn’t seem right but so many of the supporters here accuse those who want to see valid proof of ID of being atheists. Not to say that calling those who support ID ‘morons’ ‘pathetic’ ‘ignorant’ and whathaveyou is any better, but you have something to prove here. Take the higher ground, don’t stoop lower!
…
Please understand I don’t care for scientifical mumbo-jumbo. I also have little interest in Bible quotes or declarations of ‘faith’. I have my own theory on how ‘faith’ has come to be so powerful in the modern World and how even if we turned around and told people “God doesn’t exist” there will be a ‘miracle outbreak’ that will automatically ascertain for those with faith that the opposition are wrong. This theory also builds on how the power behind this is man-made and not an entity beyond us but more an entity because of us. Crazy? Probably. Does this stop me hearing what an entire following has to say in the way of proof of their beliefs and theories on the creation of life and existance? Nope. In fact it makes me more interested.
(If anyone’s interested in my weird and not-normal theory (science, creationism, ID or random atheist/agnostic/religious follower), mail me @ lalalakibi@googlemail.com.
I’d love to get proved wrong and let it rest or find new backbone to support it.)
ON THE SUBJECT OF DISCRIMINATION AND DISALLOWMENT OF THE TEACHING AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
I have already said I don’t think people should be discriminated against for the beliefs, but I do think that until ID has solid ground it should not be taught as neccessary criteria in schools. However this doesn’t mean those who wish to teach about Intelligent Design should be forced into silence. If asked about their views on evolution theory, that teacher should have every right to say ‘I don’t believe in it’, and if a student wishes to learn about the ID alternative, that child then has the freedom to approach that teacher and learn about it. If it becomes criteria, it will not be well recieved by the majority of students who already care little for the school systems. But a student who wishes to learn should be given the opportunity. But it should be their option.
As far as discrimination of scientists between scientists go, its very similar to religious jeering and the prospect of mathematical jeering should someone come up with a theory that is difficult to prove. It happens. It shouldn’t, but we seem to do it anyway, and that’s not nice. But, once proof is shown, a good deal of the non-stubborn (or less stubborn) jerks will shut up, and things will move on. Until then there will be ridicule, and those who support the theory should ride it and wait out for the proof that, if they’re right, will show up.
….
A final question, but has anyone thought to bring up the subject of ‘breeding’ as a form of selection, since it could go either way depending on how it is presented? How we choose to breed things can be classed as ‘intelligent’ design, so would this work as a theory on the for? Or since this happened probably millennia before we got involved (looking into non-domesticised animals) it could also be classed as ‘natural’ selection as well?
Its a form of selection either way, so I’m surprised to see it brought up less.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sal,
People are free to investigate ID in seminary school all they want.
No one here has shown there’s any science to ID.
They’ve only shown there’s faith, of course no evidence is required.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Not really:
I pointed out more details in
http://tinyurl.com/yqo3am
The assessment you provide is clumsy, intellectually shallow, and simplistic.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
subson… The idea is not to try and change anyone’s mind… No one can do that but you alone. The point is to force change in the scientific community, that will put an end to the suppression of scientists who want the right, respect and funding to “scientifically” study I.D. WITHOUT the bigotry, conjecture, name calling, hatred and demeaning attitudes that you just once again so plainly put on display here for all to see. I have not once mentioned Jesus or anything whatsoever to do with a religion or faith and yet you jump at the opportunity to demean and belittle anything I’ve said by labeling me a “trooper for Jesus.” You have just proven the need for this movie… and YES, “me thinks you doth protest too much.” LOL… to say the least.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Sal. Doesn’t ID need a theory first, before it can be explored? Doesn’t it need to make testable predictions? Doesn’t there need to be experiments about ID (Not handwaving around Darwinism can’t do this or that.. that’s not Pro ID anything).
See you back at UD. I’ve gotta go fix Denyse’s chair lift.
August 26th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
In response to “the integrity and merit of this movie has been under-cut when your producers LIED to interviewees on the nature of this movie” I have learned from a few bad experiences that PZ Myers cannot be trusted. He is a doctrinaire Darwin Fundamentalist who seems out to do what he can to suppress the rights of all Darwin Skeptics. He is also very unkind to those he disagrees with, as is obvious if you read his blog much. Also, if you read the blog at issue carefully, you will not see any evidence of lying, at least I could not find any. I have been interviewed many times by the media on this issue and, in my judgment, they were not fully honest, not even once, but in my experience their goal was only to slander Darwin skeptics in spite of stressing they planed to be fully fair. I am sure PZ Myers felt the goal was the same when he was interviewed and was shocked when he learned that their goal was to try to show the other side. This is something he does not want to happen. What Darwin skeptics want is a place at the table and what Doctrinaire Darwinists want is to not even allow us into the room. In a free society this will not work forever, especially in view of the fact that each new discovery, especially in molecular biology, creates more and more problems for Darwinism, as is obvious from the weak attempts on here to discredit ID.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Mr. Stein, I thought you were much smarter than this.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
From my understanding, “Expelled” is not about ID being a testable theory. It is about academic freedom. Would anyone here deny treatment from a Indian doctor if their life depended on it because he believed in multiple gods. How about if that same doctor worked at the university setting, should he/she be denied to work there because of his belief. That is the point that we are coming to. Yet the same people that think it is OK for Pinker and Ward Churchill to have academic freedom, do not support people with religious beliefs. Western atheism is as much a religion now as it is a philosophical view.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
What happened to my message?
August 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, but you can study magnetism and electricity….
You can see it happening here and now….NOT evolution.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
The mocking vitriol of those who believe evolution should not be critically thought about is very telling. If the evidence for evolution were so rock solid and irrefutable, there would be no need for the name calling and rants seen above. As fact, it would simply stand on its own. Those above who attack and mock in the posts above seem to be proving the very point Ben is making … and why a film like this was needed.
When scientists, biologists, and others question and challenge evolution as a theory, that doesn’t represent an attack by religion on science. What you have are two different interpretations of the same scientific evidence.
Again, it’s very telling when the Theory of Evolution is challenged and those who have determined evolution to be Fact feel the need to shout down those who seek to critically challenge it.
Interestingly, the post above this equates evolution to gravity as a way to some how prove its infallibility. Gravity however has proven scientific laws attached to it; evolution, alas, has not.
Hence, the debate … and why the Theory of Evolution should continue to be challenged, despite the rants of some.
August 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Excuse me. I found it. Incidentally, I have been banned by the IDists as well. Apparently, even as a confirmed, baptized Roman Catholic, I am not “Christian” enough for them. They cater to Protestant Baptists!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“Let my enemies devour each other.”
Salvador Dali
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
The bulk of the scientific evidence refutes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. This needs to be communicated to the public. It is a scientific issue, not a religious one. Both the archeological and biological record dispute Darwinism. The fact that so many people who have blogged on this site are unfamiliar with the scientific basis of this is exactly why Ben Stein’s film needs to be seen and heard.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
There is a deep philosophical question that none of us can answer. That is: Why is there order and not chaos? Although some scientists may argue it is not a valid question, most I think remain agnostic as to the answer to this question.
The evidence points to the fact that consciousness is a product of this universe. This certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of a conscious prime mover, but it doesn’t provide evidence for it either.
If we can be honest then we would find that we are asking the same questions. As a geologist I would be delighted to find a fossil precambrian bunny rabbit, my reputation would be made. But I won’t hold my breath as the probability of this happenning based on all observations to date is negligable.
The main reason for the science versus religion debate is not the honesty of scientific methodological naturalism, it is the intellectual dishonesty of religious phylosophical supernaturalism.
More often than not, after demonstrating that philosophical naturalism is an assumption just like supernaturalism, religionists proceed to confuse phylosophical naturalism with the methodological naturalism of science and declare all bets are off.
Science is based on empiricism, by definition it is the not the forum in which to put faith in subjective experience…that is for the phylosophy class.
Scientists can certainly test the god hypothesis should they choose to try, but I think it is significant that rather than try, organisations like the Discovery Institute prefer to throw their money at public disinformation campaigns. I’d be very interested to see an independant search of the various genomes, including those of humans to discover if there is any code sequence that appears to have been tampered with from outside of the evolutionary process.
How come I see scientists with tha SETI screen saver searching for extraterrestrial life in EM radiation patterns, but I don’t see fans of the Discovery Institute with an equivalent screen saver searching for evidence of intelligent design in the human genome sequence? I get the impression that they really are not that interested in evidence. Like this movie it is all a matter of culture for them and not a genuine interest in truth.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
The people saying that the movie is about freedom of inquiry are quite right.
People who believe in intelligent design are free to do research in that subject.
But they can’t do any, because they can’t think of any research to do.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
The pro-evolution responses thusfar is positive proof that they care not for truth. They wouldn’t admit to the truth if it bit them on the rearend. They’re taking a stance and circling the wagons with a closed mind and, more importantly, a closed heart.
That the pro-evolution people are being critical of a movie they have not seen, and that is six months away from being released, is proof of their rebellion, not toward Ben Stein, but toward their creator.
It will be an eternal tragedy to all of those to do not waiver from this position.
Like the people of New Orleans who refused to leave their homes because they refused to believe the truth, the pro-evolutionists will ultimately meet their eternal destiny. Like the Nazis and others, they are dead sincere, but dead wrong.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
#629; Steve Folz
Mutts. Mix-breed animals.
If you’re referring to making entirely new animals and entirely new species you’re getting the wrong end of evolution.
If an evolutionist is trying to tell you the animal that comes out the other side is completely different to the animals that breed it, THEY have the wrong end of evolutionism and need to re-check the meaning they’re fighting.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
To all antitheist comments! What a way to prove the thesis of the movie!
August 26th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
1. ID makes no falsifiable claims, it is not testible and inspires no actual research.
2. There are reams of empiracle evidence that ID’s claims are false, that tests of ID have failed, and that its research findings are mischaracterized as supporting ID.
August 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
By the mere fact that all these comments are mostly negative tells me this movie will work. How can advocates of one theory (evolution) criticize another theory of intelligent design? These God-haters are simply wouded little muffins who cry because someone told them that they had to be accountable to someone besides themselves. The church has it wrong in alot of areas but don’t shoot the messenger. The very fact that atheists seeth at even the notion of a God tells me their is a God barring any further proof. Why hate something or someone or in some atheists words want to eradicate from the planet entire faith systems? To all these pompous, self inflated atheists who want to save america from faith or God by discounting the opinions and faith based beliefs like my own, I say good luck. We’re not going away. In fact, keep it up, it makes our resolve stronger.
Jediforhire
August 26th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
John said:
No need, John. There already exists a Religion of Evolution, complete with circuit riding evangelists, formal rituals, parables, Holy Writ, child indoctrination, prayer beads, creation mythology, ‘love offerings’ and for sale books and videos.
I’m quite sure they’d welcome your monetary contributions and wouldn’t mind at all if you were to show their videos in public school science classrooms.
August 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Javascript -
Many of those points in that paragraphless spew have already been soundly debunked, both here in this thread and in the talk.origins and other links. Your very first copy-and-paste (is that really the best you can do??) was torn to pieces, and yet you blithely repost it again without a single rebuttal.
Look at this crap!
1. The second law of thermodynamics and the law of entropy preclude creation without a creator.
This was answered on talk.origins AND here. The second law of thermodynamcs says no such thing! And how does this in any way offer positive evidence for ID? It doesn’t, it’s just a poke at the ToE. Hell, even the Answers In Genesis site you listed in your cut-and-paste lists this as a stupid argument, one not to be used by anyone with any sense. FAIL!
2. The laws of probability preclude even one simple protein strand from assembling itself
The laws of probability make it millions to one that anyone will win the lottery, and yet someone seems to win it EVERY TIME. Your misunderstanding of the ‘laws’ of probability is not our problem. Again to fail to make any response to the previous rebuttal here AND on talk.origins. Again this contains not one iota of positive evidence for ID. Another useless poke at the ToE.
3. The law of irreducible complexity precludes
4. The law of information is absolute proof
Care to give us a link to where these ‘laws’ are mentioned in any real science? You made them up! Why should we give any attention to an obvious liar?
Once again you’ve given us exactly what I/we said you would - Obvious lies, pointers to christian apologets sites, and attacks on the ToE without any evidence whatsoever FOR your own ‘theory’.
This movie? Exactly the same sort of thing. It’s obvious that the ID crowd could get the money to do at least a couple of basic studies if they wanted to, at least one institution advertised an offer to fund any ID research they could find, but didn’t get a single response. No one is keeping them from publishing anything!
Gonzales? He wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID, he was denied because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years, and he’d brought in NO new funding in all that time. THESE are things that tenure boards look for in prospective professors. If he’s not going to bring in any funding, he’s going to be more of a burden than he’s worth.
Can you rebut that, or will you just repeat the same tired claims? I know where my money is going..
‘Teach the controversy’ BS? That’s funny, one of my links pointed to -exactly- why that’s no good. The Kitzmiller case in Dover discussed that point in detail. ‘Teach the controversy’ is ONLY brought up for Evolution, not any of the other theories that are equally unproven. None of the lesson plans involving ‘teach the controversy’ actually do that at all, they just take more swiped at the ToE without ever following them up with the answers the questions raise. They are once again nothing more than a thinly-disguised attack by religion, an attempt to get a wedge into the door around the seperation of church and state.
So every one of the points raised in this first copy and paste were answered, and your response is to simply repost them, even less legibly than the first time. That’s just about what I expected.
You have provided not a single link to any actual science. The links you’ve provided are all obvious christian apologetics sites. Not a very scientific response, is it?
Thank you for answering exactly as predicted. Until you can actually raise some point that I can’t answer by pointing at the Index of debunked creationist claims on talk.origins, you’re not worth answering again.
Ermine!
August 26th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I guess the world is still flat, the sun revolves around us and Constantine was right by forming his version of the Roman Catholic church to push only ideas that help his control.
hmm sad you would take up such a cause Ben, when you could be working to get our wacked out Government out of office to actually help people. Teaching Mythos in school is not my idea of higher learning.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
According to the “RESOURCES” section of this website, there is an effort to recruit individuals to help in the campaign to introduce ID into public schools. But this entire recruitment effort is focused on students. Not parents or scientists or educators.
How are students best qualified to make curriculum decisions about what topics should be covered in science class? Why are scientists/parents/educators only asked to help in recruiting students?
So the plan is to pit students against professional scientists to argue what is and what is not science?
OKayyy…
August 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Ben Stein…great work. While the majority of the American population believe in a creator God, polls show that very few biologists or biochemists do (less than 4%). What could be clearer evidence of discrimination, if not downright conspiracy?
Champion of fairplay that you are, I’d like you to consider a future documentary exploring the systematic culling of short people from basketball teams from the high school level through the professional ranks! This is certainly no fluke and, in fact, my own research shows that there’s a roughly 1/10^17598 chance that this effect would appear by purely random processes!
August 26th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Wow, how do seemingly intelligent men and women look at scientific data and insist on saying that they came from monkeys? Well, it’s simple, really. Just think of your rebellious teenager.
Just look at the data on the complexity of the human mind. To say, that it was a mistake with no purpose, well, it may remind you of a rebellious teenager saying that they don’t have to listen to authority. They want all the control with no responsibility.
Quite simply. Since the beginning of time, humankind refuses to yield to God. Instead it digs in with its heels- kicking and screaming like a toddler’s temper tantrum. Have you ever tried to reason with a tantruming toddler? Exactly. Let that same toddler grow up with no regard for authority and let her get her scientific degree, and there’s still no wisdom or understanding.
As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 20 years ago (and he has not revised his opinion since):
‘Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. (He admits that there’s no evidence for evolution).
…One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.’
So straight from an evolutionist, he admits that evolution has never been proven. In fact, there’s more evidence to support the creation story! Ouch, that one hurts the evolutionists.
The truth is: God created us (science reveals this) and history (http://www.everystudent.com/au/features/bible.html) tells us he loves us that he sent his son to take our place for the price of our rebellion (That would be Jesus if you haven’t yet heard). What a bonus! We have a purpose AND we are loved! You mean we aren’t mistakes? You mean we don’t have to act like animals? You mean we aren’t worthless? Wow!
To learn more: http://www.everystudent.com/au/features/bible.html
For those of you who are scientifically minded:
There’s an interesting report entitled ‘The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models’ and can be found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf
Reference
Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I am now thoroughly convinced, and renounce the errors of my ways. Intelligent Design is so worthy of consideration that I will adopt it in my own discipline as well, which is History.
From now on I will simply tell my students that the United States became an independent country because an Intelligent Designer made it that way. Slavery used to be common in the USA because an Intelligent Designer wanted it that way, and when he thought it should end, it just did. The Great Depression? The Designer’s will.
Wow. I bet I can teach all of human history in just two lectures! Evidence? Bah! The cause of everything and the answer of every question is simply “it was made that way by an Intelligent Designer.” My students will be so grateful that they don’t have to do no more book learnin’!
Thinking was always so hard! Thanks, Ben Stein, for showing us all that it is no longer necessary!
(Oh, and if any of these opportunities to make money by selling your soul come up, and you can’t do it yourself, I’d love to get in on the action!)
August 26th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
these critics are a waste of time. they live on talk origins, and wikipedia all day. I am sorry people, any time you use wikipedia in an argument, you defeated yourself by using an edible document as a credible source, then you claim Ben is misinformed? As for all these people who are saying “who is losing tenure for belief in ID”, do a search on Guillermo Gonzalez. He is well recognized for his work on habitable zones, and is losing tenure for supporting ID. I love how all these reviewers insist that Ben is misinformed, but then give their opinion without any backing… Great way to make your points guys. If you dont like the movie dont watch it. When I see all these pathetic complaints it makes this movie look even better. If you were so confident you wouldn’t worry about this movie or take hours putting quotes from editable documents or talkorigins.com. Get a girlfriend or a job or something!
August 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Actually Merri Ellen,
Long before your God was made up, there was Zeus, he created us. And even before that, there was some other nonsense that created us.
No one is saying we came from monkeys, like many people that have replied, you need to go back to high school biology. You don’t even understand the basics. Maybe this is why its so frustrating arguing with some ID supporters.
lets now point out your flawed logic. First, you thought that biology is about proof. Its not, thats not how science works (if you scroll up you can read more about that). Second, you thought that just because an evolutionist said that there’s more evidence one way, that THAT way is correct (aka, you appealed to authority). Finally, he didn’t even admit what you suggested.
You disagree, fine. However, if you expect Intelligent Design to be taught in a science class, it needs to be playing the rules of science, and as many people have pointed out, it just is not.
This is all a bunch of crap. If you want Intelligent design to be taught in the science room, then you should also want Astrology to be taught in the Astronomy class, and Numerology in the math class. It’s as simple as that.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
We don’t come from monkeys.
We share a common ancestor.
Why is that so hard to understand.
There is no god. IF there is… where’s the evidence?
August 26th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I love how the self proclaimed internet intellulectuals attack you. Sigh….What would science do without us Christians. trust me no one would dare say anything to you face to face. This is the internet
August 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
The only person I am interested in reaching is Ben Stein. What does it take?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
#665…Quoting scientists out of context seems to be an avocation for creationists and IDers. Here’s Yockey’s website, run by his daughter: http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm .
He does argue, quite logically, that the origin of life is ultimately unsolvable (we can’t expect to find primordial RNA/protein replicators embedded in 3.5 billion year old rocks), but you’ll see that he’s strongly anti-ID, and strongly pro-Darwin.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
It is truly a hopeless pursuit trying to get evolutionists to respond to the actual issues (such as the ones I presented). It’s like trying to get liberals to stop bashing Bush for one minute and present a better course of action. There HAS been a plethora of arguments from authority, dodging the issues, name-calling, ad hominem attacks, handwaving, conjecture, character assassination, arguments from ignorance, and arguments from personal incredulity given here by evolutionists, but nothing of real substance or consequence to the relevant questions raised by creationists.
As many times as I have tried to debate evolutionists online, this seems to be the extent of the response that I get; that and several links to talkorigins webpage. Hello?! I have links to answersingenesis’ webpage which has several more qualified PhD scientists (many graduated from secular universities) than talkorigins; so why should your obviously biased webpage overrule mine? This is the point of the ad hominem attacks though; you are attacking our worldview and thus delude yourself into thinking that this alone disqualifies us from challenging your assumptions because you consider people who question and openly criticize your beliefs to be inferior. Try to think for yourselves just once, and answer the questions please. It’s okay to use websites as a reference, but don’t just copy and paste nonsense from talkorigins. At least give us the impression you have a clue what you are talking about by critically analyzing the points that are made refuting your beliefs and answering in your own words.
The thing that I don’t get, is that if there is so much evidence for evolution, why then can you not respond to my valid points; and then in turn, I can refute your observations and present reciprocal evidence, and so-on-and-so-forth? Your method of argumentation is subsequent to a dictatorship mentality; where opposing viewpoints are not just discouraged, they are rabidly squelched by elitist ideologues who cannot afford to allow open discussion and critical thinking. It’s very much like Lysenkoism in many regards.
As frustrating as it is, it does comfort me knowing that what I believe–although not supported within government institutions and funded by our tax dollars–is true, and is actually supported by the evidence. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about evolution. Your refusal to present any evidence for evolution, or a logical response to my valid points, is confirmation of the complete lack-thereof. Do yourselves a favor all you Darwinians: actually study the observable evidence and consider opposing ideas and contradictions to evolution instead of just accepting everything on faith. Okay, now you may proceed with the content-free personal attacks and question-dodging…
August 26th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity
In a famous cartoon of one scientist talking to another, the caption says “What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years.” I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don’t think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.
Somebody who obviously not an admirer of the Christian of Faraday and Maxwell said:
“The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.”
What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.
Organic Chemists
William Henry Perkin
I need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.
George Stokes
We can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.
Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:
Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….
William Thomson
William Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:
Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.
J. J. Thomson
In 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.
The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.
J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,
“In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”
Theoretical Chemist
Charles Coulson
Charles Coulson is one of the three principal architects of the molecular orbital theory. He probably would have received the Nobel prize but he did not pass the first test. The first test to get the Nobel prize is to live to be 65 years old. The second test is to have done something very important when you were about 30 years old. Coulson did very significant work when he was in his thirties, but he died at 64, thus disqualifying himself from the Nobel prize.
Coulson, a professor of mathematics at Oxford University for many years was also a Methodist lay minister. He was a spokesman for Christians in academic science and the author of the term “God of the gaps” theology.
From the biographical memoir of the Royal Society after Charles Coulson’s death, we read a description of his conversion to faith in Jesus Christ in 1930 as a 20–year–old student at Cambridge University. Coulson testified:
“There were some ten of us and together we sought for God and together we found Him. I learned for the first time in my life that God was my friend. God became real to me, utterly real. I knew Him and could talk with Him as I never imagined it before and these prayers were the most glorious moment of the day. Life had a purpose and that purpose coloured everything.”
Coulson’s experience is fairly similar to my own at Berkeley. It would be nice if I could say there was a thunderclap from heaven and God spoke to me in audible terms and that is why I became a Christian. However, it did not happen that way, but I did have this same perception Coulson is talking about—this sense of purpose and more of a vividness to the colors of life.
The successor to Coulson as theoretical chemistry professor at Oxford, was Norman March, a good friend of mine. He as well is a Methodist lay minister.
Robert Griffiths, a member of our U.S. Academy of Sciences, Otto Stern professor of physics at Carnegie Mellon University received one of the most coveted awards of the American Physical Society in 1984 on his work in physical mechanics and thermodynamics. Physics Today said he is an evangelical Christian who is an amateur theologian and who helps teach a course on Christianity and science.
He recently said:
“If we need an atheist for a debate, I’d go to the philosophy department—the physics department isn’t much use.”
At Berkeley University, among 55 chemistry professors, we only had one who was willing to openly identify himself as an atheist, my good friend Bob, with whom I still have many discussions about spiritual things.
Richard Bube
For many years, Bube was the chairman of the department of materials science at Stanford and carried out foundational work on solid state physics concerning semiconductors. He said:
“There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.”
John Suppe
Member of the U.S. Academy of Sciences and noted professor of geology at Princeton, expert in the are of tectonics, began a long search for God as a Christian faculty member. He began attending services in the Princeton Chapel, reading the Bible and other Christian books. He committed Himself to Christ and had his first real experience of Christian fellowship in Taiwan, where he is on a fellowship. He states:
“Some non–scientist Christians, when they meet a Christian, will call on to debate evolution. That is definitely the wrong thing to do. If you know what problems scientists have in their lives—pride, selfish ambition, jealousy—that’s exactly the kind of thing Jesus Christ said that He came to resolve by His death on the cross. Science is full of people with very strong egos who get into conflict with each other. The gospel is the same for scientists as it is for anyone. Evolution is basically a red herring; if scientists are looking for meaning in their lives, it won’t be found in evolution. I have never met a non–Christian who brought up evolution with me.”
Charles H. Townes
My candidate for the scientist of the century is Charlie Townes. (Of course, he is a friend of mine and there could be some bias here.) He did something fairly significant when he discovered the laser. He almost got a second Nobel Prize for the first observation of an interstellar molecule. He has written his autobiography, entitled Making Waves (a pun referring to the wavelike phenomenon of lasers).
An excerpt from his life’s story:
“You may well ask, “Where does God come into this,” to me, that’s almost a pointless question. If you believe in God at all, there is no particular “where”—He is always there, everywhere….To me, God is personal yet omnipresent. A great source of strength, He has made an enormous difference to me.”
At eighty [years old], Charlie Townes still has a very active research program at Berkeley.
Arthur Schawlow
Schawlow won a Nobel Prize in physics, 1981, serves as physics professor at Stanford and identifies himself as a Christian. He makes this unusual statement which I think could only be made by a scientist:
“We are fortunate to have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells so much about God in widely accessible, human terms.”
Allan Sandage
The world’s greatest observational cosmologist, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution, was called the Grand Old Man of cosmology by The New York Times when he won a $1 million prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He said:
“The nature of God is not to be found within any part of the findings of science. For that, one must turn to the Scriptures.”
In one book, Sandage was asked the classic question, “Can one be a scientist and a Christian?” and he replied, “Yes, I am.” Ethnically Jewish, Sandage became a Christian at the age of fifty—if that doesn’t prove that it’s never too late, I don’t know what does!
This is the man who is responsible for our best values for the age of the universe: something like 14 billion years. Yet, when this brilliant cosmologist is asked to explain how one can be a scientist and a Christian, he doesn’t turn to astronomy, but rather to biology:
“The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance…I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order and each of its organisms is simply too well put together.”
William Phillips
Now in physics, you can be a lot younger and get the [Nobel] Prize. Phillips is not even 50 years old and he’s got it already. His citation was for the development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light. At a press conference following the announcement of his winning the Nobel Prize, he said:
“God has given us an incredibly fascinating world to live in and explore.”
According to The New York Times, Phillips “formed and sings in the gospel choir at Fairhaven United Methodist Church, a multi–racial congregation of about 300 in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He also teaches Sunday School and leads Bible studies.” If you read further in that article, you find out that every Saturday afternoon, he drives with his wife into downtown Washington, D.C. to pick up a blind, 87–year–old African American lady to take her grocery shopping and then to dinner.
David Cole & Francis Collins
Since my area of expertise is right between chemistry and physics, I cannot speak as well for the field of biological sciences. However, my longtime colleague, Berkeley biochemist David Cole and cystic fibrosis pioneer, Francis Collins—director of the Human Genome Project, the largest scientific project ever undertaken—are both well–known as outspoken Christians.
August 26th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Science is Inherently a Tentative Activity
In a famous cartoon of one scientist talking to another, the caption says “What is most depressing is the realization that everything we believe will be disproved in a few years.” I hope that is not true of my work in quantum chemistry. I don’t think it will be true, but there is some truth to this in that science is inherently a tentative activity. We come to understandings that are subjected to, at least, some further refinement.
Somebody who obviously not an admirer of the Christian of Faraday and Maxwell said:
“The religious decisions of Faraday and Maxwell were inelegant, but effective evasions of social problems that distracted and destroyed the qualities of the works of many of their ablest contemporaries.”
What he is saying is that because they were Christians, Maxwell and Faraday did not become alcoholics nor womanizers nor social climbers as their able colleagues appeared to do.
Organic Chemists
William Henry Perkin
I need to put a little organic chemistry in here so that my colleagues on the organic side will know that I paid a little attention to them also. William Henry Perkin represents perhaps the first great synthetic organic chemist. Discoverer of the first synthetic dye and the person for whom the Perkin transactions of the Royal Society of London is named, Perkin sold his highly profitable business and retired to private research and church missionary ventures at the age of 35 in the year 1873.
George Stokes
We can read about George Stokes in any issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics, which is the best journal in my field. In recent issues, Coherent Anti–Stokes Romin Spectroscopy (CARS) has been a subject of discussion. He is one of the great pioneers of spectroscopy, study of fluids and fluorescence. He held one of the most distinguished chairs in the academic world for more than fifty years, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge—a position held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently by Stephen Hawking. He was also president of the Royal Society of London.
Stokes wrote on other topics besides organic chemistry, including the topic of natural theology. Concerning the issue of miracles, Stokes said:
Admit the existence of a personal God and the possibility of miracles follows at once. If the laws of nature are carried out in accordance with his will, he who willed them may will their suspension….
William Thomson
William Thomson was later known as Lord Kelvin. Thomson was a fantastic scientist. He is recognized as the leading physical scientist and the greatest science teacher of his time. His early papers on electromagnetism and heat provide enduring proof of his scientific genius. He was a Christian with a strong faith in God and the Bible. He said:
Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.
J. J. Thomson
In 1897, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron. He was the Cavendish professor of physics at Cambridge University.
The old Cavendish laboratory sits in the middle of Cambridge campus. So much was discovered there that it was turned into a museum. A total of fifteen Nobel Prizes resulted from work done there. Inscribed over its door is a Latin phrase “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” [A new] Cavendish laboratory was rebuilt out in the country. However, it also has this sentence from the book of Proverbs written over the door, but in English rather than Latin.
J. J. Thomson made this statement in Nature,
“In the distance tower still higher [scientific] peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”
August 26th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Brian,
Thank you for treating me as a thinking person. Yes, I have access to a University Library and the Internet. When I return to my University Library and re-read about ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’, what library section will I find hard data on specific creatures that have been shown by genetic sequencing to have evolved? Is this a fair question to ask a Scientist? Where is his laboratory data that shows proof of his or her theories? What data backs up his or her claims? Can we see it please?
I have seen virus data. I am looking for living creatures, not viruses. I keep running into Biologists who claim that Evolution of this type happens all the time. But, I cannot find their data.
There is a reason why Physicists do not say, “The Theory of Gravity is as true as the Theory of Evolution.” Can you guess why? Yes, DATA! Can you suggest a section of my university library I can turn to get this gene by gene change sequence from one named creature to the next?
To Illustrate, Can I get evolving gene data from the volcanic sea colonies that shows who evolved from who… genetically… not just be hand waving shape arguments? Do they migrate from volcanic food source to another or are they independently generated by spontaneous chemical accident? If they migrate, who is the parent of whom? What evolved from whom? Genetic arguments only please. Where can I get this data? Especially if, Evolution thinks it is favorable to its Theories. That is just the sort of data a critic needs to see and even be allowed to retest. I can show you how to retest the Theory of Gravity if you need to. Or, perhaps there is data for a longer standing claim. Both the three toed facuna and the fused toe horse are living; Genetic data on them is obtainable. Can Biology show me the exact gene by gene evolution that changed the toe structure?
Let me illustrate the detail by talking about the intensity of data the Theory of Gravity did and must continue to gather to survive as a Theory of Physics.
Newton stopped with gravity measures of the moon. His critics demanded more. The moons of other planets where measured next, the orbits of the planets were worked on. Einstein even got a boost by solving the complexity of Mercury’s orbit. Alas for Star Trek fans, no perturbing planet “Vulcan” was needed after Einstein was finished. But, my point is that this advance took place because of the mountains of data on gravity that have been measured. Eignstien even provided an update on the Theory of Gravity itself. So, the collection of genetic change data actually helps science; it is not a demand of fools. But, what if the Theory of Gravity should fall under the weight of measurement? What them? We shall have a better theory due the data. Physics does not fear challenge to its theories. Why does Biology? The newer theories must fit the data collected. What is the final harm? None! Only better science. If Biology actually collected the data, what does it have to fear? Unless, it forgot to obey the scientific method… and collect data?
So, where is the data? How has Biology been answering its critics with hard fought, directly measured gene data? What section of the University Library should I turn to get it? When can I see it?
Biology has to stop propping up its credibility by appeals to other sciences. Can you show me exactly how much data Biology has and where to find it? I know that some astrophysical data from Super Nova 1987A will take 300 years to show up. I will never live long enough to see actual proof that the supernova will become a pulsar. Is Biology like this, will I have to wait 300 year for the off chance of measuring a Biological measurement? Can you just tell me where in the University Library, at what institute, where on line, I can find this data?
Thank you for any time you spend helping me find such data. With help like this, Biology becomes a better science. If there is a gap in data, maybe the persistence of critics is the negative reinforcement Biology needs to return to the data collecting ways of good Science.
In reponse to the request for genetic cascade data,
Brian Said: August 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Look up ‘gene doubling’ and ‘mutation’. The synthesis of these two concepts should answer your question. Do you have access to a university library?
August 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Guillermo Gonzales is an accomplished scholar of the highest degree, contrary to what
#661 ermine sez: “Gonzales? He wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID, he was denied because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years.”
TO which Tom Aquines sez: I wish these members of the church of Scientism would stop with their “citation bluffing” and claiming a corner on truth.
From http://www.evolutionnews.org/news/, we read…
A distinguished science professor at a major American university has weighed in on Iowa State University’s denial of tenure to pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, expressing astonishment at the result. According to Dr. Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University:
“I went to the Web of Science citation index which is the authority on citations. Only journal papers, not conference papers, are indexed. There are lots of Prof. Gonzalez’s papers listed. My jaw dropped when I saw one of his papers has 153 citations and 139 on another. I have sat on oodles of tenure committees at both a large private university and a state research university, chaired the university tenure committee, and have seen more tenure cases than the Pope has Cardinals. This is a LOT of citations for an assistant professor up for tenure. The number of citations varies with discipline and autocitations are included in the tally, but this is a LOT of citations for an Assistant Professor. A lot.”
August 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Merri Ellen:
“Wow, how do seemingly intelligent men and women look at scientific data and insist on saying that they came from monkeys?”
It doesn’t say that all. Thanks for showing your ignorance. It may say Man and monkeys share a common ancestor..
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/phillytree.gif
August 26th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Ermine… dear, over stressed, scared little Ermine. My but we have a hot head don’t we? Thank you… thank you for proving my point completely. My point was not to say that ID had all the correct scientific answers to life… and neither do the evolutionists by the way. My point was that ID is not simply a faith based view as you and so many others on this blog so ignorantly continue to proclaim. I don’t have to go toe to toe with you on scientific theories. I have only one point to make and you have more than helped to prove that point. You continue to demonstrate the mean spirited, hateful, bigotry that exists towards a legitimate scientific study. THAT my friend is criminal. Keep it up Ermine… The more people see and read the poison spewed from bigoted, chain-locked minds like yours, the more likely this film will be a block-buster success next year.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
For the sake of argument, assume that Gonzalez has done good science and was denied tenure merely for his religious beliefs. I’m guessing that Stein is gonna dig up a few other cases, and infer a grand-scale conspiracy against creationists and IDers…shades of a right-wing Michael Moore wannabe.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:05 am
guitarzan Said:
August 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I believe that a tornado, given enough time and materials, can swirl around in a junkyard and put together a Mercedes-Benz. (p.s. I am also an evolutionist).
Is that a new shiny one or a little bit smashed up one ?
August 27th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Here’s a simple experiment that might help to confirm ID: engineer a non-lethal mutation that interferes with some useful process. Then show that function-restoring back-mutations are more unlikely than would be expected via chance. This would tend to confirm ID’s notion that there’s some sort of entropic/kolmolgorov barrier to new information being created in a string of DNA.
Will they do the experiments? No. Anyone capable of actually doing the engineering knows damn well the result would be uninteresting.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Javascript: Whilst full of rhetoric, your posts seem scientifically vacuous. Are they a fair representation of ID?
JAD: I love it so!
August 27th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Once more for our supposedly “conservative” friends:
IDists are free to perform ANY RESEARCH THEY WISH.
Universities and Laboratories are free to decide WHETHER THEY WISH TO HIRE THEM OR NOT.
Why are fundams arguing that we need “affirmative action” for Creationists?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Javascript - Do you invent laws often?
Tragic.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:30 am
Javascript, you’re an idiot. You don’t have to go toe-to-toe with me on scientific theories because you haven’t GOT one. Calling you on that point isn’t bigotry, it’s common sense.
Criminal? DO tell me what law I’m breaking by pointing you to the answers and stating my opinion on a public website?
The pro-ID people on this thread have so often claimed a religious connection to the theory of ID that I don’t HAVE to. Tot up their responses and see what percentage are basing their responses on religion. Waddya know?
As I said, you’ve refused to provide any science, the thing you keep insisting that ID is based on. By now it’s plenty clear to me, also that you’re not willing to actually discuss any of your disagreements. I’ve pointed you to a huge list of answers to your claims, and you’ve responded to not a single one. I have nothing more to say to someone with their fingers jammed in both ears.
Let’s see, you’ve just called me mean-spirited, hateful, a bigot, over-stressed, scared, and a poison-spewing criminal. And *I’M* the one with a ‘chain-locked’ mind? And yet somehow MY message is wrong because I’m too angry with my delivery?
Ah well. You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can’t MAKE him think.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Javascript,
Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method. Unlike ID evolution has enormous amount of evidence to support it. Why is it that the discovery institute who funds this movie, spend money on politics and propaganda instead of scientific research. If you want ID to be taken seriously, it has the follow the same methodical process as any other accepted scientific theory.
ID is based on the ASSUMPTION of a designer exists.
Javascript, what do you define as designed and not designed?
August 27th, 2007 at 4:02 am
I love it…you’ve got Javascript, YECers, Dembski’s pitbull, Ermine, and various bible-thumpers all going at it on this thread. Still waiting for Muslims and Panspermists.
Reminds me of Dover. While Behe was doing his damndest to keep a straight face and state that ID has nothing to do with religion, you had teary-eyed protesters outside the courtroom, wailing at the injustice of locking Jesus (who died for our sins) out of science textbooks.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:19 am
What persecution of ID advocates
Sternberg says ‘Although not himself an intelligent design (ID) theorist or an advocate of the same, Sternberg thought the subject worthy of discussion.
According to his supporters, Sternberg isn’t even an advocate of ID….
August 27th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Exactly at what point did the Creator or Creators transfer the power to create over to that which had been created? My answer is NEVER. The entire phylogenetic sequence was planned in advance, unfolded on schedule, and is now complete. There is no compelling reason to believe that any contemporary organism will ever become anything substantially different from what it is now. All that remains is extinction. Just as ontogeny ends irreversibly with the death of the individual, so does phylogeny terminate with the extinction of the species.
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
“Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organsims, page 245, the entire sentence in italics for emphasis.
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) satisfies those criteria.
The tychogenetic Darwinian model is a total disaster. It fails expermental verifiction, it can never be reconciled with an ascending fossil record and it is nothing more than the necessary postulate of a “born that way,” “dyed-in-the-wool,” congenitally incurable malaise known as Darwnism, the most naive, infantile, intellectually irresponsible notion ever conjured up by a pathologically overactive human imagination.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 27th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Ben, I can’t wait for your sequel, “The Flat Earth”.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:25 am
[…] Stein is playing up the victimization angle on a blog post for the movie, and is soundly whacked by commentors for his […]
August 27th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Why Are There So Few Atheists Among Physicists?
Many scientists are considering the facts before them. They say things like:
The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions.
—Paul Davies
In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that produced life like ours are immense.
—Stephen Hawking
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.
—Fred Hoyle
As the Apostle Paul said in his epistle to the Romans:
Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.
Why the Perception of Ongoing Battle?
The last question I want to ask, then, is this, Why do so many people still think that there is an ongoing battle between science and Christianity? I don’t deny that there is an ongoing discussion. But I think the facts are that, what you think about God doesn’t depend on whether you have a Ph.D. in the sciences.
Why would some people like to think that this supposed battle rages on? At least in part, I honestly feel it is a misrepresentation. Let me give you just one example. Andrew Dickson White was the first president of Cornell University, the first university in the United States formed on strictly secular principles. (All others had been founded on a Christian basis.) He wrote a very famous book, The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology, in 1896. An excerpt:
[John] Calvin took the lead in his commentary on Genesis, by condemning all who asserted that the earth is not the center of the universe. He clinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the 93rd Psalm and asked, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”
(This is not making John Calvin look very good!) What’s the real story behind this? Alistair McGrath, Brampton Lecturer at Oxford University and perhaps the greatest living scholar on Calvin, has recently written an authoritative biography of Calvin, in which he goes into question with great detail:
This assertion of Calvin is slavishly repeated by virtually every science writer on the theme of religion and science, such as Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy. Yet it may be stated categorically that Calvin wrote no such words in his Genesis commentary and expressed no such sentiments in any of his known writings. The assertion that he did is to be found characteristically unsubstantiated in the writings of the nineteenth century….
It would be fair to ask what Calvin really thought of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the answer is that we don’t know. He probably didn’t even know about him—Copernicus was not exactly a household name in France or Switzerland in 1520. But in his preface of his translation of the New Testament into French, Calvin wrote:
The whole point of Scripture is to bring us to a knowledge of Jesus Christ and, having come to know Him with all that this implies, we should come to a halt and not expect to learn more.
I hope that I have given you a flavor of the history of science. Those of you who have taken a freshman chemistry or physics course will surely find many of these people familiar. I also hope I have given you enough evidence that you will never again believe that it is impossible to be a scientist and a Christian.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:08 am
If evolution is true, and I.D. is untrue, then we are all cosmic accidents. Why would an accident care about anything? Why do pro-evolutionists care if I.D. is taught is schools, or why would they display anger about a movie they have not seen in an internet blog? Perhaps they are proving that I.D. is true, and that there is purpose and meaning in God created life afterall.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Hey Ben,
I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure this will not be a popular career move, so I appreciate that you’re willing to go out on a limb like this.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:31 am
“Get a girlfriend or a job or something!” from “Go Ben” (comment 667) is probably the best advice you can give a Darwinist.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:36 am
A parable……
The Red Team and the Blue Team:
The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.
And they never had to compete in the game.
X
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 am
#685 DAVESCOT Says: Do you invent laws often?
Tom Aquines sez: Hi Dave. Is it appropriate to define boundaries where truth can be sought?
Claims that ID must be excluded because it might imply a Creator are pretty lame. Trying to define science narrowly does not help this lameness.
#685 Ermine Says: Javascript, you’re an idiot.
Those with an incapacity to rationally engage in debate, informed or otherwise, often resort to name calling. They also do so behind the cowardly shield of anonymity.
#687 CRasch Says: Javascript,
Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method.
Tom Aquines sez: The Scientific method is due to Christianity. See. e.g. Rodney Stark’s cool book, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:
http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/
It was founded by Christians as an addendum to belief in God, not as a substitution for God.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:25 am
“The Paley Watch Company” is evidence in support of #535. They use Darwinian evolution to assemble watches in a shaker.
I do not know how any proponent of ID can look at this compelling evidence and not embrace Darwinism.
Here’s the story:
http://cedros.globat.com/~thebrites.org/News/PaleyWatch.html
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Phhh! You reality based community are so bigoted!
August 27th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I read the first three posts on this site and I’m struck at how close-minded a self-proclaimed open-mind can be. Not only do the posts demonstrate a simple-minded, knee-jerk reaction to Ben Stein’s narrative, but they tend to support his hypothesis. In fact, the first post actually provides quotes from Einstein that support Ben Stein’s assertion that Einstein strove to discover the principles that God created (I didn’t see any mention of a “Personal God” in Ben Stein’s argument).
I’m certain that the close-minded individuals that are the subject of this film have already judged it to be laughable and not worth their scrutiny. Once the film is released, I’m sure the vehement anti-science fascists will hit the streets/media again to shut down the thought rather than debate the evidence. Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings. Other scientists are free to debate the findings, but science demands that scientists are free to test hypothesis’, and not get shut down before they can think them up.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Tom Aquines:
Look, read, see all the things ID doesn’t have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Hardly a Christian construct. This is:
(2 Cor 10:5 KJV) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ
August 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
SL says: “Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings.”
Indeed it does, and if you check you will find that evolutionary biologists do this all the time in their subject.
Now SL, could you please give me examples where ‘intelligent design’ has been similarly tested and published in the scientific literature? Hint: slick movies from comedy actors don’t count.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Spinoza figured this out long ago. Give it a rest.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Oh how the ignorance grates!
The whole point is that by saying “people are getting shut down” because they are being discriminated on is the big strawman of this whole arguement. The truth is Science has standards, when these standards aren’t being met, you are no longer doing science. ID does not meet the standards of Science and therefore is no more than a humanity, such as philosophy. Get it straight, stop whining and do some actual work to get respect. Propoganda and mis-information campaigns do not equal science. Sorry guys but that’s the sad truth and by trying to spin this story into some little injustice is just compounding the intellectual embarrassement that these charlatans deserve.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:33 am
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.”
- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot
Pandeism is that religion…. Pandeism is the faith that provides the spiritual explanation for all the magnificent science of the Universe….
August 27th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Ermine & CRasch:
A. Thanks for calling me an “idiot”… more proof of the bigotry you and others spew towards those with a different perspective. You don’t believe in the freedom for others to think differently than you do… that my disturbed friend is the very definition of bigotry. (noun: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.)
B. BIGOTRY is criminal Ermine… is that so hard for you to understand? It is against the law in this country to allow bigoted attitudes to suppress another individual from their own rights.
C. The film is NOT about the people on this thread, although they have a right to their opinion and I don’t hear any of them offering that opinion with as much venom as you do on every post. The film is about legitimate scientists who study all the same things hard core Evolutionists study but come to different perspectives, view and theories based on the evidence and or lack there of. I don’t go toe to toe with you on scientific points because that’s not my point, nor is it necessary for me to do so. If you want to know what ID believing scientists are studying and what their findings are, I suggest you go to their web sites or read the articles linked to the Troublemakers or News pages of this site. Now I’ve said that how many times? I don’t ever plan on discussing science with you… You have your mind made up clearly. But you nor anyone has the right to suppress legitimate scientific studies and or findings and THAT I will argue with you until you evolve into something other than the bigoted, mean person that you are.
D. I have no idea where CRasch gets the idea that the Discovery Institute funds this project. That’s not what I’ve read on any of the sites or blogs humming with details about this production. DI has nothing to do with the funding at all! That’s just hilarious how you guys make this stuff up out of nowhere!
E. CRasch… ID is not “based” on the ASSUMPTION that a designer exists. That’s where you guys have it all wrong. True scientific ID studies are based on all the same information that any other scientists has… The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further and to freely write or speak about those findings without being trashed by their colleagues and bigots in the media or the left wing liberal agenda of the ACLU.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
SL wrote: “Haven’t the “scientists” out there heard of the scientific method. It starts with a hypothesis, then an experiment is designed to test the hypothesis, followed by publishing the findings. Other scientists are free to debate the findings, but science demands that scientists are free to test hypothesis’, and not get shut down before they can think them up.”
I think this hits the nail on the head for many - has ID done a sufficiently good job on providing a testable hypothesis? Many scientists will argue that they have not and that if ID does have any merit, it is very much in early formation - and certainly not ready to teach in the classroom (which also goes for many other speculative scientific hypotheses too). Furthermore, many claim that the hypothesis of ID is not even testable, and that as such ID belongs better in the philosophy curriculum rather than in science.
One more note: there is nothing to stop ID researchers performing their own work outside of the traditional academic arena. In fact some of this has already happened - for example there is an online journal devoted to ID-related topics (www.iscid.com) - but it’s interesting to note they haven’t published any new journal since November 2005!
My feeling is that the ID community needs to stop endlessly focusing on Public Relations and needs to start doing some good science that scientists can actually poke and test.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
“Tom Aquines
#687 CRasch Says: Javascript,
Do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method.
Tom Aquines sez: The Scientific method is due to Christianity. See. e.g. Rodney Stark’s cool book, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery:
http://www.amazon.com/Glory-God-Monotheism-Reformations-Witch-Hunts/dp/0691119503/
It was founded by Christians as an addendum to belief in God, not as a substitution for God.”
Tom wrong.
It was not founded by Christians, (even though many Christians help develop the modern version of it), it was founded by the Greeks: Plato, Aerostottle and Socrates. And they the first to be recorded bring up Intelligent Design also.
Tom,
do you even know what science is? Do you understand the process of the Scientific Method. I’m not talking where it came from but what is the process and method.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
X-EVolutionist wrote: “A parable……
The Red Team and the Blue Team:
The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.
And they never had to compete in the game.”
Here’s a variation…
The Red Team and the Blue Team play a game of soccer. The Blue Team fields 11 players, but the Red Team shows up only with 7. The referee calls the game off because the Red Team doesn’t have sufficient players. The Red Team immediately complains vociferously to the referee that this is not fair, starts canvassing the crowd for support, and pickets the Soccer Commission to allow the rules to be changed so they can participate…
August 27th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
For those that don’t think Darwin doubters are persecuted and harassed just read this.
Clearly, Stein has tapped into a big issue.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“If evolution is true, and I.D. is untrue, then we are all cosmic accidents.”
This is false, and you are a liar for saying this.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
“Once the film is released, I’m sure the vehement anti-science fascists will hit the streets/media again to shut down the thought rather than debate the evidence.”
In what way do you believe an attempt will be made to “shut down the thought”. Also, why have you ignored the numerous detailed explanations as to why ID is not science, instead acting as though they do not exist. Were you simply too lazy to actually read the discussion, or are you dishonestly ignoring the fact that the ID position is intellectually without merit?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
WOW! I am intrigued. I will be watching for more about this movie, and will interpret everything I see and read through my filter of belief in the Bible and the God I find there, as I am certain each person who has so vehemently declared me foolish here will be doing, through their filters of whatever science they choose to believe as a religion.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.”
Is dishonest, invalid analogy the only argument you have?
ID claims to be science. Please demonstrate that ID is, in fact, science by stating the ID hypothesis. State the event(s) that ID purports to explain. Provide the observations that have led to the conclusion of ID. State the observed mechanisms that are considered a part of the ID process; that is, state the observed mechanisms used in the alleged process of “design” as it relates to “Intelligent Design”. State a hypothetical observation that would, if observed, show that ID is false.
If you cannot do this, then you cannot honestly claim that ID is science, and it is fundamentally dishonest to suggest otherwise.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
There is nothing in the idea of Evolution that contradicts Christian religious beliefs explicitly. We believe something really crazy to begin with that our creator became one of us was killed by us and brought himself to life to destroy the power of death. That is the root of what we know to be true. We are each created at the moment of our conception through some random collision of the very smallest parts of us individual cells. We our existence to our God from then on. Does it really matter how we came to be?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I still have not recieved any answers to my questions, which leaves me slightly concerned that either they were passed up, my name lead IDists to scoff, or they simply don’t want to answer.
Soo… I have a question now for any EVOLUTIONIST takers…
While we understand that viruses and bacteria seem to evolve and grow in their own ways, how are we, as larger organisms, meant to have evolved? Not so much ‘Did we?’ as ‘how did we get from a close-to-monkey-common-ancestor to a very human form, which seems to have stuck for so very long now?’
Is there some way of chemically (or otherwise biologically) testing how we as organisms adapt and ‘evolve’, without resorting to bacteria that is apparently not an acceptable form of evolution proof?
For IDists, did it occur to you that a number of the probable tests of evolution would require animal or human testing that isn’t neccesarily either legal or perhaps protested against by animal rights activists? This might be why bacteria is the resort. This could also work out against possible I-D experimentation in future as well, depending on the tests.
I do hope answers can be found to my questions. I do still want to remain open-minded, and the more answers I have the better prepared I’ll be to make up my mind.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Ben,
I am an engineer in the field of telecommunications. Not quite a “scientist” but very interested in the way things work. Have been my whole life. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about Intelligent Design and the almost hysterical opposition that so called “scientists”, have to theories opposing mainstream Darwinism.
As you know, at one point, it was called the “theory” of evolution. Now it seems to be the “fact” of evolution. Even though there are many gaps in it and IMO, much evidence has now come to light for the ID argument such as molecular machines and other phenomenon (Irreducible complexity, etc…). These GAPS in Darwin’s theory are the reasons why some scientists had to postulate an opposing theory.
Even Darwin conceded these things with the following statement in “The Origins of the Species”:
He wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Well… so far, his theory has at the least, cracks in it, because I have yet to see any complex organ (an eye for example) form itself out of a bunch of primordial goo…
However, that does not mean I am not willing to hear about Darwin and his theories and hear the argument on the ID side as well. Then I can make up my mind for myself.
What are they so afraid of?
It’s like they are children with their hands over their ears yelling “la,la,la,la… I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”
Anyway, good luck in voicing your argument as you will need all the luck (and blessings) you can get because from what I have read from some of the posts so far, there are a lot of people out there in a state of spiritual warfare with God.
The mere mention of anything in opposition to naturalism or even if you just speak the word GOD and the battle is on!
I leave you with one thought:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Victims of Big Science are Guillermo Gonzalez, Richard Sternberg, William Dembski, Carolyn Crocker, and the list goes on. If you haven’t, browse Ben’s web sight and view the trailer with the victims. This may may be a conspiracy, but it isn’t from the ID’ers.
This is in response to:
#680 subson Says: For the sake of argument, assume that Gonzalez has done good science and was denied tenure merely for his religious beliefs. I’m guessing that Stein is gonna dig up a few other cases, and infer a grand-scale conspiracy against creationists and IDers…shades of a right-wing Michael Moore wannabe.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
#662 Pondering God Says: I guess the world is still flat, the sun revolves around us and Constantine was right by forming his version of the Roman Catholic church to push only ideas that help his control.
Tom Aquines sez: I guess the universe is still infinitely old, life springs from spontaneous generation, the way to help a fever is through bleeding, and matter is conserved and can’t be transformed into energy. Science does not have the best historical track record. Why do we think that “science” has the corner on truth today when it did not in the past?
August 27th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
As an active member of the scientific community, I know no one is shut out. The only thing you have to do is support your case with testable hypotheses and show positive support for you case. ID simply has failed to do so. ID is a god of the gaps argument. It is based solely on ignorance. To date, it has neither produced a testable hypothesis nor showed positive support from the data. It has only relied on the stance that some things are just too darned complicate to have evolved. That’s not science, and hopefully will never be mistaken for science. Dembski was asked to show in as much detail his ID theory as people have shown for evolution theory. He said that it wasn’t his job to provide the details. There is no more greater statement than that to describe how pathetic ID is.
To the ID supporters:
Describe a single case were tenure has been removed for pro I.D. behavior. You simply can not. There has never been a case were a person has been removed from a tenured position based on his I.D. stance. There hasn’t even been a case where a person has been denied a promotion solely because of it.
Dr. Gonzalez was denied tenure, for a multitude of reason. He failed to produce original research while at Iowa and failed to get a single grant. Either one of those situations alone is enough to kill any dreams of tenure.
The other case is Richard Sternberg. He in particular displayed poor ethical judgment. The Meyer’s paper dealt with the Cambrian fauna. He was at the Smithsonian, and had access to the world’s experts in the field. He also had some of the brightest and biggest names in the fields of paleontology and systematics available to him. He used his position as editor to make sure that the paper was not reviewed but those most qualified to review it, but to get it review by people who would give it a favorable review. It’s called shepherding a paper. It doesn’t matter what the paper was about, if an editor shepherds a paper, he should instantly be removed.
Furthermore, the Meyer’s paper was just plain bad. It failed to review a significant amount of literature available on the subject. It implied certain conclusions of other papers that were unfounded. It referenced papers that were not peer-reviewed, and it was plagiarized from previous Meyer’s papers. Any one of these reasons would be enough to reject the paper.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
“In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.”
I, for one, am glad that my governmental research granting agencies are reluctant to give money to dead people.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
The claim that there is” nothing in the idea of Evolution that contradicts Christian religious beliefs explicitly” .implies that the opposition to evolution is based on religious grounds and in some cases this is true, but much of the opposition is based on science. We first must prove evolution true before we even need to argue if and how it can be accommodated to theism. My concerns are not religious but scientific. The fact is the evidence is very clear: evolution, defined as “from the goo to you by way of the zoo” is not true, and it never could have happened and did not happen. This conclusion is based on science, not religion. The problem has always been, not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest. Of course, the more fit are more likely to survive, but where did the fit come from? Mutations (DNA copying errors) cannot explain the arrival of the fittest and every theory tried so far has failed, including syntropy, pangenesis (Darwin’s choice) orthogenesis, macromutations (Richard Goldsmith) and all others.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The Red Team and the Blue Team Take 3.
Blue team come, and say they’ve won 9-0, without even kicking a ball. When quizzed about how the game works, they have no idea.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The claim that Gonzales wasn’t denied tenure because of his views on ID is irresponsible. I have researched this case fairly extensively. Letters published by his peers who denied him tenure stated fairly openly that he was denied tenure because of ID. His peers have stated in print that no one who does not believe Darwinism is responsible for all life should be awarded tenure. The claim that he was denied tenure because he hadn’t published but a handful of papers in 15 years is flat out wrong. He was one of the most published members of his department and in his college. He had a remarkable publication record in many of the best journals in print today. This claim is one reason why I and many others believe that Darwin Fundamentalists are one of the most serious threats to academic freedom today. After this case, most all young ID supporters (and I know many, including 2 at Yale University in the life science department) went in the closet or concluded that they better stay there. To survive as an opposer of Darwin used to be difficult, now it is close to impossible. I know of numerous of cases like Gonzales. The Darwin Fundamentalists have adopted Nazi like tactics and, in the future, I believe that they will look as bad as the Klan looks today. This film will, I hope, expose this travesty.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Allot of theses Intelligent Designerist/Creationist think theory is just a guess.
Theory in a scientific context is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.
This is why in science theory and fact are almost synonymous. Theories explain a body of facts.
Experiments sometimes produce results which cannot be explained with existing theories. In this case it is the job of scientists to produce new theories which replace the old ones. The new theories should explain all the observations and experiments the old theory did and, in addition, the new set of facts which lead to their development. One can say that new theories devour and assimilate old ones. Scientists continually test existing theories in order to probe how far can they be applied.
Intelligent Design does no such thing. It bases it self on assumptions. Intelligent Design is a denigration of current theories. It puts a designer in the unexplained and unknown. Thats an assumption, not evidence.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
This is fantastic. Well done. As an applied systems analyst who programs models to emulate real world observed activity - this appears to be a breath of fresh air.
Any dicerning reader will note that most of the comment made thus far is simple, and boil down to “don’t force religion on me”. The claim of the darwin dissidents is elementary. There is much complexity and darwinian explainations are limited - perhaps not good enough. Yet the furor that this creates is insane.
Unfortunately I am a closet Darwin skeptic. I am petrified, that if I get out, though I have many publications to my name, I fear I can kiss tenure goodbye.
It is pathetic that academic freedom is not accepted. To question the academic merrits of Darwin means an academic’s career’s death. Our current humanists are worse than organised religious oppressors of old.
Thank you very much for making a stand.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
How can a God who is perfect create so many defective beings? That must mean that God makes errors or that he is not the creator. Which is it?
August 27th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed”
–Charles Darwin, 1861
Letter 3154 to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]
In that letter, after declaring the apparent impression of design, Darwin gives an anemic excuse as to how he managed to self-blind himself to what was obvious. He argued that he didn’t understand the purpose of life, therefore it was not designed.
He argued designs which break down imply something is not designed (a very bad argument). He presumes a Perfect Creator will make things as Perfect as Himself (a highly illogical presumption by Darwin).
He mistakenly presumes one must have knowledge of the purpose of an artifact to conclude it was designed. Not true. We know many things are designed long before we every understand the purpose…
Curiously, one has to wonder if Darwin would have been expelled from the Big Science Academy because he dared to doubt even his own theory as evidenced by that quote.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
If you want positive proof that I.D. exists and that evolution is false, then order a DVD of the Kansas Science Hearings that were held by the Kansas State Board of Education. 23 expert witnesses, including Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and Warren Nord testified as to the validity of Intelligent Design.
The pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings because they had no evidence whatsoever to backup their claims of the evolution theory.
For DVD, send $20 to:
New Liberty Videos
P.O. Box 25662
Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662
August 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Agiel…now that we have both chimpanzee and human genomes sequences, we can do comparisons and see what the important differences are. It’s looking more and more like the issue is not so much about different genes, but differences in transcription factors. You can also discern which genes have been evolving particularly quickly (selective sweeps)…over the last 10,000 years or so…a couple of genes in the brain are interesting candidates. You can discern the date at which chimps and humans diverged…it’s all there for the reading in those 3 billion base pairs.
There are scores of papers out there by real scientists doing real research. On the ID and creationist side…nothing, really. They just complain.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
By the way, given the presence of introns in eukaryotic genes, identifying coding sequences can be a tricky business. One important method that works quite well is to compare human and mouse sequences. Exons are under pressure to conserve sequence, whereas introns don’t have that same constraint. So real scientists look for regions that have certain tell-tale marks of alternating slow and fast mutation rates. And it works (you know, because the end-product is a functional protein)!
This is the sort of day to day reality that makes evolution fairly obvious to real biochemists. The objection from the creationists is simply, “That doesn’t disprove a miracle” (which is true, actually…but science doesn’t operate under the assumption that miracles are happening left and right).
August 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“While we understand that viruses and bacteria seem to evolve and grow in their own ways, how are we, as larger organisms, meant to have evolved? Not so much ‘Did we?’ as ‘how did we get from a close-to-monkey-common-ancestor to a very human form, which seems to have stuck for so very long now?’”
Hereditable genetic variation in offspring conferring relative reproductive success improvements over successive generations within a given environmental niche.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“Well… so far, his theory has at the least, cracks in it, because I have yet to see any complex organ (an eye for example) form itself out of a bunch of primordial goo…”
Fortunately for the theory, whether or not a given feature could have evolved is not determined by your personal incredulity.
Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Ben fire your agent, then yourself.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Hey, Ben. What’s next? Will you shoot a movie about poor persecuted Holocaust “revisionists”?
After all, Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zuendel are currently languishing in a German prison for what they have written on paper and online. Can any of your alleged examples come even close to these … um … “martyrs”? Didn’t think so.
So, will you be travelling to France, to interview “poor” Professor Faurisson, who was actually beaten up for his views? Will you seek out Fred Leuchter, who lost his job and his wife? Or how about David Irving, fresh from Austrian jail?
Or will you stop half-way, thus showing your blatant double standard?
Ben, Ben, Ben… Just because someone is persecuted - or thinks he is persecuted (or lies that he is persecuted) - doesn’t mean that (s)he is right and his or hers views are worthy of being aired nationally, or defended. How come you can’t understand such a simple thing?
August 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Here is a Nobel Laureate 1996 that would have been expelled from the Academy:
“Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that [biological] evolution could not have occurred.”
–Richard Smalley, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate-Chemistry, 1996
See:
http://tinyurl.com/yoayoq
August 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
[…] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed » Blog Archive » Ben Stein’s Introductory Blog this is ben stein’s “michal moore”-like anti-evolution film. he gets shredded in the comments. (tags: film blog creationism science id) […]
August 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Ben, I’m very dissapointed in you. I thought you were a smart, intelligent man, but you seem to have slipped here somewhere:
—-
This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.
—-
NO IT HAS NOT. Science, by its very nature, cannot comment on the supernatural because it cannot be tested, which is a core element of science itself. The supernatural has NO place in science, ask any philosopher. NEVER HAS.
One you’ve made that logical fallacy, you run with it and make this movie. Shame.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Fran and Dimensio have given us an elegant capsule summary for why to believe Darwinism. They’ve represented an awful lot of the overall meat of the Darwinist argument in a very short space. First Dimensio:
“Hereditable genetic variation in offspring conferring relative reproductive success improvements over successive generations within a given environmental niche.”
Well. That settles it then. Intricate biological designs are just simply guaranteed to pour out of this process. It’s as clear as the Pythagorean theorem. Only mental deficiency would nitpick such an elegant all-sufficient process. It just plain has to be true. Can’t you SEE?!?
Fran:
“How can a God who is perfect create so many defective beings? That must mean that God makes errors or that he is not the creator. Which is it?”
If I’m not mistaken, this is a theological argument. No science needed! God’s a screw up, so Darwinism is true! Let’s all go out and cherry pick a minimum of corroborating scientific evidence and call it a day!
So, the twin pillars of fiery eyed, nostril flaring Darwinist belief: the intellectual worship of a vaguely specified but undeniably elegant-sounding process, and simple theological incredulity.
Shallow science. Shallow theology. I think I’ll search out “win/win scenarios” somewhere else.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Let me be the first one here to say (at least on the creationism side) that I do NOT think that ID is necessarily a scientific theory. By that I mean that although it is based on logical reasoning and common sense inferences derived from the observable evidence, it cannot be empirically tested or subjected to the Scientific Method. It would best be described as “origins science” and not applicable science which is used in a tangible way on a day to day basis. With that being said, the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. macroevolution) is also not a valid scientific theory, because it cannot be subjected to the Scientific Method either.
Basically, what we have are two separate worldviews: one that requires a creator, and one that denies a creator. The camp that denies a creator is first denying logic, and there also the evidence that substantiates the logical conclusion. Logic is only useful when it is utilized to draw conclusions that fit a pattern of intelligent observation in light of the evidence provided. Logic dictates that if you have a structured universe that is bursting at the seams with intricate detail and necessary symbiotic relationships which exhibit a stable, immutable stasis of existence, as well as intangible laws that function on mathematical principles which sustain both its integrity and progression, it cannot be explained by random chance.
The idea behind probability theory is that reasonably predictable outcomes can be calculated based on the quantity of variables available divided into the quantity of the KNOWN desired outcome(s). Evolutionists like to play the lottery card here, but they miss the point. Yes, winning the lottery may be a 1 in 50 million shot, but if 5 million people play, there is a 10% chance someone is going to win the jackpot. Even if only one person plays (which is not realistic), there is STILL a chance of them winning, because the desired outcome is both KNOWN and achievable. Trying to apply this logic to evolutionary theory is like rolling a pair of standard gaming dice and trying to get 13; it’s just not possible. To make this comparison to winning the lottery, you have to believe that evolution had a desired outcome in the first place, which implies intelligence. Obviously you cannot submit to the idea of intelligence; at least judging by the way you arrogantly attack with disdain those who adhere to the concept of its necessity. If you take probability and you apply it to a theory that predicts nothing (evolution) and has no goal in mind (no pun intended), the chances of anything useful being created out of nothing SHOULD be zero. Just like not rolling a pair of nonexistent dice with no numbers on them will probably never give you 10. Extrapolate this to a universe that has about 10^80 atoms (that’s 10 with 80 zeros after it), and denying a creator becomes even more illogical. This is actually being rather generous considering that the calculations by Sir Frederick Hoyle regarding the probability of spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoeba are estimated to be one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power. In fact, your chances of randomly drawing a particular atom out of the known universe if it were packed with atoms would only be about 1 in 10^112…much greater than the chances of JUST the proteins of that single amoeba forming by accident.
Creationists and ID supporters alike have been trying to get this concept through to atheistic evolutionists for some time now, without much success. In fact, evolutionists avoid this question like the plague, because they have absolutely no answer for it; the universe requires a designer. If you cannot understand that, you have no business pontificating about evolution having “tons of evidence” and copying and pasting talkorigins rhetoric, because your argument has no foundation even to stand on. Like I said before, if you cannot explain life WITHOUT a creator, then you have no basis for a theory excluding one.
So now what? You have nothing but recycled garbage from your anti-creationist webpages, which you pompously parade around like the holy-grail of evolution, and attack and berate people for not reading your doctrine, while simultaneously ignoring the counter web pages that have “already debunked” your silly evolutionist arguments over and over again such as these:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims Refutes all the refutations refuting what we refute
Evolutionists, please consider that you might in fact be wrong and actually consider the question of origins instead of simply assuming “evolution did it.” If nothing else, at least admit that this universe and everything in it requires a designer of some kind. If not, you really don’t have any place to talk down to the people here who actually have the intelligence and common sense to see as much. Thank you.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
[…] being said, I am happy about Ben Stein’s newest project. And I think that the response that he has received on his blog only serves to prove what his […]
August 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Someone asked - Why are so few physicists atheists? The answer is very simple. Physicists have higher IQ’s than biologists. It is also expressed by the fact that physicists make their greatest contributions when very young. It is hard to imagine dumber scientists than Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and P.Z. Myers, atheists all. I’ll bet their combined IQ’s wouldn’t break 360 and I defy them to produce hard data to the contrary. I have challenged them repeatedly, only to be banned from their “groupthink” enclaves so I don’t expect a response this time either. We several critics of the Darwinian model, not a professed atheist in the lot, are not allowed to exist because, if that should happen, Darwinism would instantly join the other two demonstrated hoaxes, the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics, already mere footnotes in the history of science.
There are sins of omission as well as of commision and the primary spokespersons for the Darwinian fairy tale are masters of both. When they did recognize this critic it was with such comments as “your stench has preceded you” (Myers) and “John Davison has been recognized as a ‘time waster’ and his email will automatically be deleted.”(Dawkins). Just the other day Myers described me as a “kook.” Elsberry freely promotes the use of foul language in dealing with his adversaries. His tolerance of the abuse heaped on of my ally Martin is an idictment of Elsberry’s character. These are all matters of record and I treasure them.
Furthermore, I can say with complete candor that not one of these three blowhards has ever published a word of truth concerning the paradignm they so violently defend. RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb are all nothing but fan clubs for their atheist sponsors. Not a single constructive comment has ever originated in any them and for a very good reason. EVERYTHING in the Darwinian scheme is wrong - dead wrong. Both natural selection and sexual (Mendelian) reproduction are anti-evolutionary which is why, with very few exceptions, all organisms reproducing strictly sexually have always been doomed to extinction. Now that creative evolution has terminated, extinction is all we see. It was the man who originated the term, “The Modern Syntheis,” Julian Huxley who agreed with the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and concluded in no uncertain terms that “evolution is finished.” I have documented the whole sordid business in my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto” and in my 2004 paper “Is evolution finished?” Rivista di Biologia 97, 111-116. The Darwinians are now so desperate they must ignore even the conclusions of two of their most prominent representatives, Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky. How either of them managed to remain Darwinians is one of the greatest mysteries in all of the evolutionary literature.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 27th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’m sorry, Ben.
I used to respect your thoughtful insight. Perhaps you sold your good name to crap or were carelessly mislead. Either way this was a major laps of good judgement. Too bad. I’ll probably never think of you as bright light of rationality again.
-Alan
August 27th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Kudos to you Ben!
I think it’s awesome you are involved in this project. I think what very few ppl know, is that Creation Science is science. They use the same operational science as particles-to-people evolutionists use. It’s a shame that Creation science is censored from the world. And particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
In my research, many scientists have discarded Darwinism. There are the few who know it isn’t true, but they need a job.
The site http://www.answersingenesis.org has a lot of info for those who want to explore outside of particles-to-people evolution. Even Darwin questioned his own theory.
Many writings relating to Charles Darwin are now online. They are quite revealing. This is what the Captain of the Beagle had to say about what Mr. Darwin found in Patagonia.
It is quite clear from this that Charles Darwin found evidence of fossils buried rapidly in marine sediment in layers subsequently found lying thousands of feet above sea level. According to FitzRoy this points to a global Flood, continental scale erosion and massive uplift. This evidence was partly responsible for forcing FitzRoy to accept the reality of the global Biblical Flood. But Darwin later closed his eyes to the evidence.
It’s about time that people are free thinkers, have the freedom of choice and to be able to use their freedom of speech without the fear of diehard Darwinism believers criticizing them.
A DVD I’d like to recommend is Universe-the Cosmology Quest at http://www.universe-film.com/index.php
I just can’t believe the deceit that is still being taught. Like “Lucy”. Many believe her to be our ancestor. But she has been proved to be 100% ape. There are many mis-taught subjects in particles-to-people evolution.
The only reason they went to the punctuated equilibrium is because the fossil record they used for transitionals/intermediates went down the drain. For about 110 yrs, they taught slow gradual evolution, and the gaps couldn’t be explained, so they had to come up with PE.
Darwinism is religion, an atheist religion. People can choose not to believe in God or his creation, but particles-to-people evolution didn’t happen either.
Everyone has the right to question everything around them. Even the right to learn what the public schools don’t allow to be taught.
(I’ll whisper it … creation science) This word is taboo in most public schools.
I’ll close in saying:
If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they fear Creation science being taught? And don’t tell me because of religion. That’s a cop out. They certainly seem to freak out if it dares to make its way anywhere including the courts. If they have nothing to hide, then it shouldn’t be a problem what so ever. They ought to be confident enough to throw their arms up into the air and say, okay, go ahead, teach your science. It’s science, not the end of the world. Both sides use the same operational science. Creationists accept the science of genetics—and so do evolutionists. Creationists accept the science of natural selection—and so do evolutionists. Creationists accept the science of geology—they sort rocks into sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic, for instance. The operational science is not the issue—it’s the particular views of history that separate creationists and evolutionists. Both sides have different beliefs about the past that cause them to interpret the evidence in different ways. And I say, so? What’s wrong with people listening to both sides? Do they not have a choice in the matter? DO they have to hear evolution ONLY?????? If you think about it, there really shouldn’t be any debate at all. We do live in a democracy country, do we not? Shouldn’t ALL the taxpaying people have a say??? Where’s the right to vote on this???? Or, does that continue to be taken away as it has been?
If anyone is a fanatic about anything, it’s the Darwinism evolutionists. They seem to almost go into convulsions if creation science dares make a small break for the world. Why the panic? You say you have facts. So, then present those facts and debate your facts against creation science in front of the world. Let the world hear these debates, and let the world decide for himself or herself, each as an individual.
Scientific creation is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching. Scientific creation and Biblical creation can, in fact, be taught quite independently of each other. Scientific creation is based solely on scientific evidence from such sciences as paleontology, geology, thermodynamics, genetics and other sciences. The scientific case for creation is based on knowledge of DNA, mutations, fossils and other scientific terms and concepts, which do not appear in the Bible. So, I say Darwinism evolutionists, get over it!!!! If your theory has so much backing, then what is your problem? Expose the world to all areas of science. Shouldn’t students have the opportunity to learn all there is to learn and not be subjected to only one idea? Especially when there are other ideas?
~M
August 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Ben,
Ben,
I am a devoted reader and fan of your column in the business section of the New York Times and have always found you to be an intelligent and reasonable analyst. Given this, I find it difficult to believe that you could be duped into becoming a puppet for the “ID” movement.
I don’t want to repeat what has already been posted, so I’ll try & be brief. The issue is NOT the freedom to believe what you like. The issue is what constitutes a scientific inquiry. ID does not meet that definition. THAT’S ALL! Science is EVIDENCE based! ID is a philosophy/religion under the guise of a “science”. Why not teach alternate (and baseless) views of history? Why not respect holocaust deniers? Why not teach the alternate theory that storks bring babies? Why not teach homeopathic medicine in medical school? What about pyramid power?
But I’m being flippant and cavalier. For a true understanding of the scientific issue, I BEG of you to read “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. There was also an excellent article in “The New Republic” a couple years back. Or simply read the transcript of the famous Dover case!
Please do whatever it takes to withdraw your name from this movie. You will forever damage your reputation and (I’m sorry to say) lose my respect.
Sincerely,
Dan
August 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Michael Terry,
“You’re right, ID isn’t science. It’s metaphysics.”
Then teach it in the religion or philosophy classes, if at all. It might be good topic to mine for teaching fallacies in the philosophy classes, and to teach about the evolution of religious thinking in the religion class.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Steve C. “Gravity is a theory..Electricity and magnetism is a theory”
Theory is the word behind attempts to describe and explain these realities. But gravity is a reality, so is electricity and magnetism. We can SEE they are real by how they affect things in real time. It’s like saying that wind is a theory. You can’t see it, but you see what it does. Does that make wind a theory?
Agiel Intelligence - “Mutts. Mix-breed animals.If you’re referring to making entirely new animals and entirely new species you’re getting the wrong end of evolution.”
Mutts are dogs…from dogs. No new animal.
Mixed breeds…ummm, same animal species.
The wrong end is the only one they try to explain and it’s self-defining. Your example is typical.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
For all of you ID supporters who are bashing advocates of Evolution. Remember this one simple thing, if you provide evidence of ID we will beleive you. Thats what scientists do, we follow the evidence. If what we know today changes tomorrow, then we would research it and based on the evidence collected (if following rigorous scientific standards of control etc…)we would modify our beleifs.
For example, it was once believed that humans used only 10% of thier brains. Now, thanks to neuroscience, we know that the 10% theory is fallacious.
Dearest Stein et al., once you give us something that is testable, you will continue to be scoffed and discounted.
BOOSH.
Talor Flynn, M.S.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Oh dear…typo.
Dearest Stein et al., until you give us something that is testable, you will continue to be scoffed and discounted.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:20 am
BTW, Ermine, I looked up the term “ad hominem” just to be on the safe side, since semantics seem pivotal in these blog debates.
Guess what? Name-calling and questioning motives, character, etc. qualifies as such. Even if it wasn’t, it would certainly be in poor taste. Just because the forum is an Internet blog doesn’t justify it, either.
Now, just because I’m feeling a bit contentious, let’s throw some fuel on the fire.
Doesn’t the Kalam Cosmological Argument allow for the possibility of a design, a “Creator” (distancing quotes used only to briefly discourage rabid skeptics and critics), and/or at the very least, a cause?
Let’s hear some discussion on this one, please!
August 28th, 2007 at 12:34 am
#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?
August 28th, 2007 at 12:41 am
A German leader of the 20th century said the following ‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now’
Guess what? They guy was persecuted and reviled!
What more proof is needed that people who doubt Darwinism will be persecuted?
Just look what happened to Hitler!
August 28th, 2007 at 1:19 am
By the way, this idea that physicists are in the habit of being devout believers is really ludicrous: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html . As usual, the creationists blather away without evidence to back them up.
In any case, if astronomers and physicists were so devout, Mr. Stein wouldn’t be offering up Mr. Gonzalez’s case as an example of rampant discrimination against believers.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Awesome post Marilyn Oakley… If any of you missed it go back and look for:
Marilyn Oakley Says:
August 27th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Marilyn details the issue quite well.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:30 am
I LOVE IT!
750 responses so far and almost all of them ‘protest too much’ as the DISMISS VERY VERY HARD.. DISMISSING DAMMMMMIT!
Stein is right on the money and this is going to blow apart the clamp ‘naturalists’ have been gripping with their dying hands.
Expelled is overdue and any SINCERE thinker (atheist to theist to inbetween) will WELCOME freedom of inquiry and a return to truly unbiased inquiry.
Enter the Stein!
August 28th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Brian Barkley:
“If you want positive proof that I.D. exists and that evolution is false, then order a DVD of the Kansas Science Hearings that were held by the Kansas State Board of Education. 23 expert witnesses, including Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, and Warren Nord testified as to the validity of Intelligent Design.
The pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings because they had no evidence whatsoever to backup their claims of the evolution theory.”
The reason that scientists did not attend the meeting is the same reason that they refuse to debate IDers on cable TV, because it would give a legitimacy to a blantant pseudo science
IDers, with all that wealth of evidence and research planned, get some funding and do the research. Publish your findings. Prove “big science” wrong.
But hey, you’re a bunch of idiots who are about as scientific as my dog, so I doubt you’ll listen to reason. Science is not a democracy: it’s not abortion, it’s not the Ten Commandants and Prayer in Schools. You can’t force science to listen to like you can force everyone else.
Science is discriminatory: evidence is your ticket to ride. Bring evidence and let’s improve Science. But the idiocy of ID is not Science.
Stay in your chruches and let us have our science.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:59 am
I just wandered over to the Discovery Institute’s website. They’ve got a guy arguing that evolution is not falsifiable, while ID is.
Why is ID falsifiable? According to the speaker, if we ever find a planet with non-carbon based life forms, ID will be refuted. I’m not sure why…it’s easy to posit a designer seeding the universe in all sorts of creative ways.
In any case, look at the difficulty involved in making the leap to falsifiability…you’ve got to hop around the universe looking for non-carbon life. Never mind that few “orthodox” scientists find non-carbon life to be likely. As usual with these guys, the argument is purely abstract.
On the other hand, if you want to falsify evolution, all you gotta do is find a rabbit in the Cambrian, or a mammoth in Australia, or an austrolopithecus in North America.
I think many earnest scientists wish the DI could come up with something really challenging. But it never happens…you just get a load of PR and abstract philosophy and math (mostly irrelevant probability calculations).
August 28th, 2007 at 5:20 am
While I am not a part of the “ID movement,” or any other “movement” for that matter, Intelligent Design is manifest in everything in both the animate and inanimate worlds. It should never have been presented for debate. Debate is for debatimg teams and God knows they have never decided anything. The internet is crawling with them, populated mostly by unfulfilled sociopaths of one ilk or another. I would like to know of a single scientific progression that was ever advanced by either debate or concensus. I am all ears.
William Paley put his finger on the solution with his aphorism - “Where there is design there is a desiger.” The error is in the present tense. All that can be verified is that a design required a prior designer. That is also all that is required. Is Frank Lloyd Wright alive? Incidentally, as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin I met him. I also heard Robert Broom lecture, an unforgettable experience.
One of the most profound words ever penned were “God is dead” by Frederich Nietzche. Only having lived can one die. That is why it is an error to dismiss Nietzche as an atheist. Homozygous, “prescribed,” “dyed-in-the-wool,” “born that way” atheists like Hitchens, Myers and Dawkins will not permit us to postulate even dead Gods! I tried at RichardDawkins.net forum and was banned for my efforts!
To blindly assume that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble itself into a self-perpepuating, evolving entity even once is patently absurd.
“To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumptiom which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 28th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hey…all you ignorant evilutionists. Here’s another falsifiable prediction of ID: since there’s no such thing as junk DNA, it’s impossible for retroviruses to actually integrate into a host’s DNA.
Another challenge met! It’s easy to slap these stupid biochemists around!
August 28th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Heh, lovely….
“It has to be testable! I don’t accept that a creator is possible, there for it is not testable!”
The word you’re looking for is “falsifiable,” Mr. Flynn. BTW, Darwinian evolution is non-falsifiable by any measure that rejects the falsifiability of intelligent design.
If you actually were here to “follow the evidence” you wouldn’t mind that folks ask questions, any questions. Asking questions you don’t like is responded to with attacks and wails. Thus, logically, you are not willing to follow the evidence.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Is string theory and multiverse theory testable? If not, then they should also be “discounted and scoffed” at by academia.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
How Did Life Begin?
Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of time and chance. The DNA molecule holds as much data as a very complicated computer program.
Nobody would believe that Windows XP, for instance, is the result of time and chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows XP is the result of time and chance.
X
August 28th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I did some research on the Gonzalez case and the claim that he was not let go due to his ID beliefs and came up with some interesting admissions. Iowa state University Professor John Patterson boldly states that Darwin Skeptics
“often complain that their theories and their colleagues are discriminated against by scientists and educators …as a matter of fact, creationism should be discriminated against…no advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed”.
Patterson took great pains to explain that his reasoning was not based on religious discrimination, but on scientific integrity because ID is not religion but science. His view is that denying Darwinism explains all life is simply wrong, and that, on that basis, deserves to be discriminated against. Patterson concludes that no one that he judges to fit this label (including theistic evolutionists such as ID advocates) is qualified to be a scientist or an educator. He openly concludes that those who advocate (or personally accept) such a perspective should be denied the right to make a living in any science, or even in education or a related field—the exact state in which Jews found themselves at the beginning of World War II. At the very least, he stresses, Darwin skeptics’ transcripts should be “marked” so that schools and employers easily can discriminate. Civil Rights legislation clearly specifies that employees in protected classes (such as minorities and religion) must be evaluated only on the basis of job criteria that are specifically relevant. Patterson, commenting on the suitability of Darwin skeptics for any scientific or academic profession, advocates employment evaluation be openly based on one’s beliefs, concluding that ID is discriminated against
“as it should be. It is the responsibility of teachers and school officials to discriminate against…anyone who advocates…[all forms of ID]. I am glad this kind of discrimination is finally catching on, and I hope the practice becomes much more vigorous and widespread in the future”.
Patterson, notes he even argues that scientists who argue for theism from design were “incompetent” and societies that accept the credentials of such persons are “irresponsible.” Patterson’s attack on his list of engineers, some of them quite well known, and all with a record of outstanding professional accomplishments, who he felt were incompetent because of their support for creation. Among those on the list was D.R. Boylan, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Dean of Engineering at Iowa State University (Patterson’s own department head!)….a number of other professors at state universities were also named in Patterson’s list of “incompetents.” Patterson added that public schools which allow the use of materials “produced by incompetents deserve to be discredited, as do their responsible officials and staff”.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Corrections on my last paragraph:
Patterson even argues that scientists who argue for theism from design are “incompetent” and organizations that accept the credentials of such persons are “irresponsible.” Patterson then attacked a group of “incompetents”, some of them quite well known, and all had a record of outstanding professional accomplishments, who he felt were incompetent because of their support for some form of creation. Among those on the list was D.R. Boylan, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Dean of Engineering at Iowa State University (Patterson’s own Dean!) and a number of other professors at other state universities were also named in Patterson’s list of “incompetents.” Patterson added that public schools which allow the use of materials “produced by incompetents deserve to be discredited, as do their responsible officials and staff”.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Dear Ben.
In order for a scientific theory to be considered legitimate, it has to meet numerous criteria. Some of these include:
-parsimony (see Occam’s razor)
-falsifiability (there must be some hypothetical way in which it could be proven to be WRONG)
-it must be BETTER and have greater EXPLANATORY AND PREDICTIVE POWER than previous theories
These are just a few of many, but I’m sure if you try to slide ID into any of those boxes you will quickly ascertain that it miserably fails each test of scientific “theoriness”.
Reality check: ID isn’t discriminated against because of some BIG SCIENCE conspiracy (hilarious term though, by the way). It is discriminated against, rightly so, because it is not scientific.
I never thought you were a stupid guy. I thought maybe you would have read at least a basic work on scientific philosophy, or would have at least reviewed the evidence in the creation/evolution “debate”. You obviously did neither, and I’m sure your film will be the more hilarious for it.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
It is not evolution that is being debated, it is evolution as driven by “natural selection” organizing a series of genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems. The Darwinists would like to make this a debate over religion. One doesn’t have to believe in a personal god to accept intelligence as a force of nature. One does have to be a devoted materialist to believe such nonsense. Read my entertaining story with questions about materialism at
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
August 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Dimensio Says:
Fortunately for the theory, whether or not a given feature could have evolved is not determined by your personal incredulity.
Appeal to incredulity is a logical fallacy.
You prove my point Dimensio….
I read some of your other posts including the reply you gave to my post above. You use some very strong words to describe people who just want to hear both sides of an argument.
You call people who don’t subscribe to your point of view “vehement anti-science fascists, lazy, dishonest, liars who are fundamentally dishonest, and intellectually without merit”…
Then you inferred that because I personally don’t believe that we are all just, in your words, “all cosmic accidents”, then I must be in a state of denial.
I wrote in my post that I wanted to hear both sides of the story because I try to stay open minded about this issue as well as others.
Does this make me a fool?
I enjoy reading about human history (including what is written in the Bible) as much as I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel show how some shark species have not changed much at all for millions of years.
I admit that I don’t know how it all came together.
The problem is, neither were you, yet you deny that it could have ever happen except through evolution and random chance.
I don’t think so.
Maybe the “feature” that needs to evolve in this discussion is your tolerance of other people’s beliefs.
You are so sure that you are right. Everyone else must be some sort of right-wing Nazi Torquemadas to question the status quo of Darwinism.
Let me guess… you are a liberal secularist or possibly even a devoted atheist and your hero’s are Al Franken and Al Gore.
Here is some wisdom for you if you decide to hear:
Proverbs 8
Wisdom Calls for a Hearing
1 Listen as Wisdom calls out!
Hear as understanding raises her voice!
2 On the hilltop along the road,
she takes her stand at the crossroads.
3 By the gates at the entrance to the town,
on the road leading in, she cries aloud,
4 “I call to you, to all of you!
I raise my voice to all people.
5 You simple people, use good judgment.
You foolish people, show some understanding.
6 Listen to me! For I have important things to tell you.
Everything I say is right,
7 for I speak the truth
and detest every kind of deception.
8 My advice is wholesome.
There is nothing devious or crooked in it.
9 My words are plain to anyone with understanding,
clear to those with knowledge.
10 Choose my instruction rather than silver,
and knowledge rather than pure gold.
11 For wisdom is far more valuable than rubies.
Nothing you desire can compare with it.
12 “I, Wisdom, live together with good judgment.
I know where to discover knowledge and discernment.
13 All who fear the LORD will hate evil.
Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance,
corruption and perverse speech.
14 Common sense and success belong to me.
Insight and strength are mine.
15 Because of me, kings reign,
and rulers make just decrees.
16 Rulers lead with my help,
and nobles make righteous judgments.
17 “I love all who love me.
Those who search will surely find me.
18 I have riches and honor,
as well as enduring wealth and justice.
19 My gifts are better than gold, even the purest gold,
my wages better than sterling silver!
20 I walk in righteousness,
in paths of justice.
21 Those who love me inherit wealth.
I will fill their treasuries.
22 “The LORD formed me from the beginning,
before he created anything else.
23 I was appointed in ages past,
at the very first, before the earth began.
24 I was born before the oceans were created,
before the springs bubbled forth their waters.
25 Before the mountains were formed,
before the hills, I was born—
26 before he had made the earth and fields
and the first handfuls of soil.
27 I was there when he established the heavens,
when he drew the horizon on the oceans.
28 I was there when he set the clouds above,
when he established springs deep in the earth.
29 I was there when he set the limits of the seas,
so they would not spread beyond their boundaries.
And when he marked off the earth’s foundations,
30 I was the architect at his side.
I was his constant delight,
rejoicing always in his presence.
31 And how happy I was with the world he created;
how I rejoiced with the human family!
32 “And so, my children,[a] listen to me,
for all who follow my ways are joyful.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise.
Don’t ignore it.
34 Joyful are those who listen to me,
watching for me daily at my gates,
waiting for me outside my home!
35 For whoever finds me finds life
and receives favor from the LORD.
36 But those who miss me injure themselves.
All who hate me love death.”
August 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Science, religion, truth, and lies: a comparison of standards.
Faith and Truth, by Louann Miller
As we know, a lot of the heat in the evolution v. creationism debate comes from the fact that the two sides often talk past each other from radically different frames of reference. There are real differences in the moral weight that the cultures of science and religion attach to certain ideas. I think “truth” is one of those ideas. I also think — and I think I can support this — that science has far, far stricter moral standards in the ‘truth’ department than religion does.
To start with, creationist groups like AiG and ICR use a definition of “true” which I wouldn’t call either scientific or religious, but political. (If you think that I’m implying a lower moral standard with that word, well spotted.)
By that standard, reality is what you can get away with. That’s why you see things like quotes taken out of context http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html repeated again and again as if they weren’t total misrepresentations of what the original speaker actually said. That’s why AiG’s list of arguments creationists shouldn’t use http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp speaks in terms of “you could be caught out, and lose the argument, if you use these” rather than “it is morally wrong to use arguments that we know to be inaccurate.” Read it for yourself, on their own site.
But deliberate dishonesty aside, there’s still a difference in mindset between science and more genuine kinds of religion. Differing definitions of ‘faith’ and ‘truth’ are big parts of it.
In a religious context, ‘faith’ and ‘truth’ are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don’t have faith in it, that’s a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea’s failure to be true. If you don’t have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.
In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it’s a personal failing. Imagine a bridge engineer being invited to “have more faith” that a design has enough steel in it to keep his bridge from collapsing. His faith has nothing to do with it; either the bridge stays up, or it falls down. Faith in the sense of ‘letting yourself be persuaded without adequate evidence’ is morally wrong in that context. If the bridge engineer does so, and people die in the collapse, he’s murdered them.
Scientists, or the good ones, feel the same way about their theories that good engineers feel about their bridges. It’s their job to make them right, not to convince themselves for their own emotional comfort that they’re already right, pretty much, close enough.
If a scientist says “I have faith this theory is true,” he doesn’t or shouldn’t mean it in the religious sense of “I commit myself to this no matter what the evidence may say, forever. Don’t try to change my mind, here I stand.”
Instead, he means or ought to mean “I’ve tested this theory, and I’ve seen the results of other people’s tests, and I’m as sure as I can possibly get on the available evidence that this theory is as close to right as we can get. Unless something else really radical turns up. Keep me posted.”
Which, incidentally, is one reason why scientists in their professional personas are very sparing with words like ‘faith’ and ‘truth’. Just as the bridge engineer is supposed to know exact breaking strains rather than “probably close enough,” scientists are expected to be able to state exactly how confident they are in a given proposition and why they feel that confidence. Faith and truth imply absolutes, which in a scientific context implies glossing over small details that might contradict those absolutes.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
A few centuries ago alchemists were shocked to learn that given a sterile environment - you can not simply toss in a lot of inorganic material and expect to get mice, or grass or trees.
Given enough rocks and mud in a sterile environment you can get “a mountain” but you never get grass and trees as long as it remains in that sterile state.
Atheist Darwinists are STILL trying to “rediscover that” basic fact of science and entropy.
Sir Isaac Asimov admitted that the story-telling “process” required to get from molecule to human brain “requires a massive decrease in entropy” regardless of the fact that emperical data shows us that such a system does not exist!
Given enough metal, wiring, rubber and oil you will never get “a car” you just get a huge oxidizing pile of mtal, wiring, rubber and oil!
Atheist darwinism has stooped to being so tied to myths and story telling that it has to pretend to be “surprised” each time these basic science facts come up.
BobRyan
August 28th, 2007 at 11:25 am
From a previous post on this blog –
For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html Out of “place” fossils
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/lucy.htm Lucy Lies article
http://www.omniology.com/Lucyism.html Lucy Lies
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html Archeology and the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology Archeological evidence for the Bible
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth very informative
http://www.trueorigin.org/ Site refuting many talkorigins arguments
http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp (long list of many creationist articles
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30 Evidence against the Big Bang (technical)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html Anti-Creationism site
Also the open-minded objective unbiased reader might want to see www.godandscience.org
August 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
To those of you claiming that anti-ID statements on this blog are further evidence of Stein’s point, I say “Huh?”
Stein is talking about religious discrimination, and nobody has offered a single example of such. Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination, and nobody on this blog has suffered any kind of discrimination. (Disagreeing with someone or even making fun of their beliefs is not discrimination.)
August 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Javascript
“CRasch… ID is not “based” on the ASSUMPTION that a designer exists. That’s where you guys have it all wrong. True scientific ID studies are based on all the same information that any other scientists has… The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further and to freely write or speak about those findings without being trashed by their colleagues and bigots in the media or the left wing liberal agenda of the ACLU.’
What EVIDENCE, there is none, period. All they have is assumption. That is not scientific knowledge, thats faith. That is what you don’t get. There are standards in science based on empirical evidence. EMPIRICAL! not assumptions.
I have no problems with you expressing your opinion, but don’t expect me to point out your logical and factual fallacies.
And why hasn’t all these Creationist / Intelligent Designist do any real science instead of propaganda? Because they know that what they propose is not science but religion. There has been only one published peer reviewed article on Intelligent Design. And it was debated and criticize.
This is part of science.
If you want Intelligent Design to be taken as science, then you have to go though the same methodical process as any other theory in science. You think evolution was accepted right away once Darwin published his book?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
ID = Arguement from ignorance, god of the gaps, loads of strawmen, false dichotomy, arguement from authority, confussing association with causation, Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable, Inconsistency, Moving the Goalpost, Special pleading & ad-hoc reasoning = an arguement based on fallacies. Try something new guys it’s getting old correcting your bad arguements over and over.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
As I read the comments above I am struck that the majority of posts have two things in common: (i) ad hominem attacks against Mr. Stein; and
(ii) attacks against belief in God or comments of support for Mr. Stein and God, but primarily the former.
This is not a science v. religion debate or a debate about Mr. Stein. The issue is: does Darwin’s theory of evolution make since in light of newer scientific discoveries made since Darwin published his theory. Looking at the issue dispassiontately, the new scientific factual evidence says it does not. I do not have a God-shaped axe to grind on this issue. However, there is significant evidence to suggest that mainstream academia has affirmatively taken the position to back Darwin’s theory at all costs. I encourage the bloggers on this site to look at other blog sites supporting Darwin’s theory such as Professor Dawkins site. The articles, treatises and monographs contained or cited on these sites contain the same smug personal attacks and snide remarks with virtually no answers to the gapping holes in Darwin’s theory. Ironically the “Church” used to be thought of as the gatekeepers keeping new knowledge from the people if such knowledge challenged their worldview. Now it is academics who are fearful of seeing their self-constructed paradigm fall like the tower of Babel. I tried to discuss this subject over coffee with a biology professor at Emory University about 10 years ago and he all but told me to shut up. He was literally concerned even to be seen discussing the subject in public outside of his classroom.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
It appears, based on the promotional materials and the language used, that this film will cater primarily to the political right. I find that unfortunate, as I think it sets up a false dichotomy that’s all too easily dismissed (as apparent from many of the knee-jerk comments here).
The issue really isn’t whether Intelligent Design is a viable scientific theory, it’s whether science will bear dissent. It’s not just the existence of God that is becoming untenable- it’s also questioning the veracity and nature of climate change, for one. Or some of the public health issues surrounding sexuality. Let it be known that you’re not of the same, assumed opinion of the correct-thinking, and your career is likely to be ended, then your livelihood removed, then your character defamed.
Science and faith have limited claims on each other, but throughout history they have interrelated- sometimes well, sometimes not so well. Certainly there have always been scientists who maintained a belief in a higher power. Can we really be happy to have arrived at a point at which a person must be fearful not about their method or conduct, not even of the results of their research, but of the beliefs that underpin their commitment to their vocation? It doesn’t take being a proponent of ID to be vilified and shunned; given the proper environment, and enough at stake, and a simple mention of your belief in God is enough to get you dismissed.
Is this scientifically rigorous? Are there questions and issues so threatening to science that they must be suppressed? I certainly don’t see science as so feeble, and I’m no scientist. But if it categorically rejects the inquiries of legitimate practicers and thinkers who depart from the accepted norms, such as positing the existence of God, it can’t be science any longer. Then it will become, ironically, something more akin to magic- a set of special knowledge practiced by charlatans.
Over the past 30 years, religion has become increasingly identified, in public at least, with the political right. Now science is undergoing an equal and opposite reaction, aligning itself with the political left. But it seems to me that neither science or faith are best served by getting into bed with politics.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Ben Stein,
You’ve been taken in by confidence men.
But that’s ok.
“For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant)”
A whole lot of stupid people have also been conned.
Fortunately, it’s all completely irrelevant on a timescale of a million years.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
“Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination” Really? Have you read the report on Sternberg by the US government? It contains pages of E-mails that prove clear evidence of discrimination. Click here to download the full report: http://www.souder.house.gov/sitedirector/~files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY follows:
In January 2005, an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal first raised public awareness about disturbing allegations that officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) had retaliated against museum Research Associate (RA) Richard Sternberg because he allowed publication of an article favoring the theory of intelligent design in a biology journal.1 A well-published evolutionary biologist with two doctorates in biology, Dr. Sternberg claimed that after publication of the article, his colleagues and supervisors at the NMNH subjected him to harassment and discrimination in an effort to force him out as a Research Associate.
In November of 2004, Dr. Sternberg filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency charged with “protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing.” The OSC eventually found evidence to corroborate Dr. Sternberg’s complaint, concluding that “[i]t is… clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing” Dr. Sternberg out of the Smithsonian. Despite this finding, the OSC was unable to pursue its investigation due to a question of jurisdiction. In August of 2005, subcommittee staff initiated their own investigation into the possible mistreatment of Dr. Sternberg by the Smithsonian. During their investigation, staff met with Dr. Sternberg and senior Smithsonian officials, and reviewed internal emails provided by the Smithsonian in response to requests from the subcommittee.
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.
Major findings of this staff investigation include:
Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights. There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable. Indeed, NMNH officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution. On September 13, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, chair of the zoology department, wrote to crustacean curator Dr. Rafael Lemaitre that he could not find a legal basis for terminating Sternberg, but added: “I suppose we could call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?” 3 A few hours later, Dr. Lemaitre responded that “a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.” 4 Finally, in an email on October 6, 2004, Dr. Coddington (in his capacity as Dr. Sternberg’s “supervisor”) stated that he was planning to meet with Dr. Sternberg to convey the message “that if he had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” 5 Clearly, the NMNH management was trying to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave, since they knew they had no legal grounds to dismiss him.
In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution. For example, Dr. Hans Sues, Associate Director for Research and Collections, suggested in emails on August 30, 2004, and again on September 9, 2004, that Dr. Sternberg would never have been appointed as an RA if Smithsonian officials had known about his non-governmental activities regarding evolution. Sues even blamed the scientist who nominated Sternberg as a Research Associate for not adequately investigating his background: “Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.” 6 The clear implication was that had a background check been conducted on Sternberg’s non-governmental activities, he would have been barred from being a Research Associate. Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials. As a taxpayer-funded institution, such blatant discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals based on their outside views and activities raises serious free speech and civil rights concerns. With regard to Dr. Sternberg, this discriminatory attitude makes it all-but-impossible for him to be fairly considered for reappointment when his current term as Research Associate ends in 2007. Indeed, NMNH officials expressed in their emails a clear expectation that Dr. Sternberg would not be reappointed as a Research Associate after expiration of his current appointment. True to their statements at the time, NMNH officials have recently notified Dr. Sternberg that they will not renew his position as a Research Associate. Rather, they will only permit him to continue his research at the Smithsonian as a Research Collaborator—a demotion from his previous position. 7
The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations. Dr. Sternberg’s OSC complaint describes efforts to discover or disparage his supposed religious and political beliefs, and the OSC investigation concluded that there was “a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.” The emails reviewed by subcommittee staff corroborate this finding. In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know “if Dr. Sternberg was religious.” Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg “was a Republican.” Schotte even conceded that Coddington may have asked her whether Sternberg “was a fundamentalist” and whether “he was a conservative.” Dr. Schotte insisted that by asking such questions “Dr. C. was not being judgmental, only curious.” 8 But given the demonstrably hostile atmosphere toward Sternberg at the NMNH during the period in question, there is nothing innocuous about an official with supervisory authority inquiring into Sternberg’s religious and political beliefs. The email traffic also substantiates Sternberg’s concern about a viscerally anti-religious culture existing at the Museum. For example, on February 22, 2005, NMNH Research Associate Sue Richardson sent an email of solidarity to Dr. Coddington regarding the Sternberg situation. She complained about the time she spent living in the “Bible Belt,” mockingly reporting that “the most fun we had by far was when my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the ‘under dog’ part…” 9 Would similar expressions of disparagement have been tolerated by Smithsonian officials if directed at a racial minority?
NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him. In cooperation with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Museum officials attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information. While NMNH officials have the right to criticize scientific views with which they disagree, using government time and resources to publicly smear with false information someone whom they supervise is an abuse of their authority as government employees. In addition, Dr. Sues promised the director of the NCSE on August 26, 2004, that “[f]rom now on, I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg, and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas poutside [sic] crustacean systematics.” 10 The clear purpose of having the NCSE monitor Sternberg’s outside activities was to find a way to dismiss Sternberg. Dr. Sues hoped that the NCSE could unearth evidence that Sternberg had misrepresented himself as a Smithsonian employee, which would have been grounds for dismissal as a Research Associate.
Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred. In Deputy Secretary Burke’s most recent response dated May 3, 2006, she acknowledged that Dr. Sternberg’s viewpoint on evolution sparked “strong disagreement” among other scientists at the NMNH, but insisted that “[w]hile the tone of the disagreement between scholars may seem harsh, disagreement does not equal discrimination.” 11 However, the issue is not the disagreement of Smithsonian scientists with Dr. Sternberg’s views on evolution, but rather their effort to use their official powers to punish Dr. Sternberg by seeking to remove him as a Research Associate, and their effort to publicly smear him with false information on government time using government emails. More broadly, NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research. This is discrimination, plain and simple. The abject failure of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to protect the basic rights of Dr. Sternberg to a civil work environment is indefensible.
Because of the Smithsonian’s continued inaction in the Sternberg case, Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists in the Smithsonian and other federally-funded institutions. Since the treatment of Dr. Sternberg came to light in early 2005, evidence has accumulated of widespread discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory, making further violations by federal agencies likely. While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither federal funds nor federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view.
1 David Klinghoffer, “The Branding of a Heretic,” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2005.
2 Letter from Sheila Burke to Rep. Mark Souder, May 3, 2006.
3 Jonathan Coddington, “Re: Upcoming in Helsinki,” September 13, 2004, 10:51 AM, email to Rafael Lemaitre and Hans Sues.
4 Rafael Lemaitre, “Re: Upcoming in Helsinki,” September 13, 2004, 1:46 PM, email to Jonathan Coddington and Hans Sues.
5 Jonathan Coddington, “Re: Research Associate sponsor,” October 6, 2004, 1:29 PM, email to Hans Sues.
6 Hans Sues, “Re: Reply [3],” September 9, 2004, 10:57 AM, email to Frank Ferrari.
7 Richard Vari, “RE: NMNH Research Associateship: CV and Research,” October 5, 2006, 12:42 AM, email to Richard Sternberg; Letter from Cristian Samper K. to Richard Sternberg, November 2006.
8 Marilyn Schotte, “statements,” March 22, 2005, 9:53 AM, email to Jonathan Coddington with attached memo dated February 8, 2005.
9 Sue Richardson, “Re: misc,” February 22, 2005, 9:38 AM, email to Jonathan Coddington.
10 Hans Sues, “Re: Meyer article,” August 26, 2004, 1:41 PM, email to Eugenie Scott.
11 See note 2.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
The report URL was truncated. Try a search for:
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DECEMBER 2006
________________________________________________
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HON. MARK SOUDER
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
August 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
SecondClass said:
“Gonzalez and Sternberg certainly weren’t victims of religious discrimination, and nobody on this blog has suffered any kind of discrimination. (Disagreeing with someone or even making fun of their beliefs is not discrimination.)”
You are missing the salient point of the discussion.
#1. Atheist Darinism is religion based on junk-science. The high-priests of ateist darwinism show almost as much religious fervor in attacking better-science when it debunks atheist-darwinist story-teling as do their devotees.
As Colin Patters (atheist, Darwinist, and senior paleontologist British Museum of Natural History) well noted — all this “storytelling” in atheist darwinism is certainly “Stories easy enought to TELL but they are NOT science”!
There is a case of a true believer in atheist darwinism - admitting to the plain facts that most devotees would shudder to admit.
#2. The complaint here is not “atheist darwinist believers do not agree with ID so that is bad”. The issue is the censorship and underhanded tactic of hamstrining science itself so that competing views are not “allowed”. As was pointed out blatantly in the Dover case EVEN to mention “the Existence of a book in the Library” that was not pro-atheist-darwinism was so threatening to atheist-darwinist devotees that it was decided that they were owed 2MILLION in damages for a schoolbard board having committed the crime of TELLING students that “A BOOK exists in the LIBRARY” that discusses alternate solutions!!
How sad that atheist darwinist believers should be sooo married to censorhsip!
BobRyan
August 28th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Marilyn Oakley said: “According to FitzRoy this points to a global Flood, continental scale erosion and massive uplift. This evidence was partly responsible for forcing FitzRoy to accept the reality of the global Biblical Flood. But Darwin later closed his eyes to the evidence.”
How did the Flood manage to sort the bones so neatly so that, for instance, we never find horse fossils mixed with T. rex fossils?
“It’s about time that people are free thinkers, have the freedom of choice and to be able to use their freedom of speech without the fear of diehard Darwinism believers criticizing them.”
Science needs criticism.
“Many believe her to be our ancestor. But she has been proved to be 100% ape.”
Can you provide a citation?
“The only reason they went to the punctuated equilibrium is because the fossil record they used for transitionals/intermediates went down the drain. For about 110 yrs, they taught slow gradual evolution, and the gaps couldn’t be explained, so they had to come up with PE.”
Yes, that’s how science works. When new evidence appears, theories are modified to explain them. When cracks started appearing in Newton’s laws, Einstein filled them in with relativity. That theories change is not a weakness in science, it’s a strength. Any scientist would LOVE to overturn an established theory. We give Nobel Prizes to people who can do things like that.
“Darwinism is religion, an atheist religion. People can choose not to believe in God or his creation, but particles-to-people evolution didn’t happen either.”
For the nth time: plenty of people believe in God AND accept the evidence for evolution. They are not mutually exclusive.
“Everyone has the right to question everything around them.”
This is true.
“If Darwinism evolution is all that and then some, why do they fear Creation science being taught? And don’t tell me because of religion. That’s a cop out.”
It’s not a cop out at all; it’s the central point. Creation science always falls back on a religious basis. It’s not science at all, so it shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom. It would be perfectly acceptable to teach it in a comparative religion class.
“What’s wrong with people listening to both sides? Do they not have a choice in the matter? DO they have to hear evolution ONLY??????”
Do they have to hear round-earth theory only? Or heliocentric theory only? Or germ theory of disease only? Or should we also give equal time to flat earth, geocentrism, and the idea that diseases are caused by demons?
“Where’s the right to vote on this???? Or, does that continue to be taken away as it has been?”
Science is not based on popular vote.
“Scientific creation is not based on Genesis or any other religious teaching.”
What is it based on? If there must be a creator, that who or what is it?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
INCREDIBLE:
Almost 800 posts so far, and everyone on both sides have missed the real question.
The real question to pro-evolution Darwinists is this . . Are you lashing out against Intelligent Design because you are open to truth, and searching for truth, and have made an indepth study of that truth? Or, are you lashing out because you have taken a position and are holding to that position come hell or high water?
It is totally obvious by now that DNA means nothing to you, that the compexity of the human cell means nothing, and all of the other scientific discoveries of the past 50 years alone mean nothing.
As the Bible says, “in his heart the fool says there is no God.”
You are indeed a fool.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
javascript said: “The differences are that ID scientists see EVIDENCE of a designer and want the freedom to pursue those studies further”
This might sound antagonistic, but I don’t intend it that way. What studies could they possibly perform? What possible experiments or research could they do to look for a designer? How do you tell something that was designed from something that wasn’t? Was *everything* designed? How would they know if it was if they don’t have something that wasn’t designed to compare it against?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
onein6billion:
Ah yes, and once again the “ignorant & stupid” cards are played by our bigoted friends to the left. I get just a little bit tired of that pathetic, response… Do any of you?
CRasch:
You continue to re-post the same arguments over and over and over again, regardless of how many people respond to the false acusations you make concerning ID and Evolution. You keep saying ID has no evidence, only faith, implying that evolution has hard core facts, which we all know it does not. Both I.D. and Evolutionary studies derive their THEORIES from the same scientific evidence. Did you hear me say that again? I and other can keep saying that a few more thousand times if you like. Are you listening? You say all ID has is assumptions??? What facts do you have of what you believe? Can you prove random mutation creates new species? Can you give me an example on one time that has happened. What two species were involved? You’re realy only defending a faith, theory and religion, whether you want to admit it or not. And why would you fight so hard to destroy any form of science that is only attempting to dig further to learn more. Are you afraid of what might be found? What makes you think your views and those of the hard core evolutionary science world have the right to keep a stranglehold on what is or is not going to be studied in science. You are the one who is terribly ill-informed over what studies are being done by scientists who doubt darwinian evolution. You are the one who is sounding foolish because it’s very clear that you are unaware of what they really do and you’re fighting with all your strength like you know it all.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
…Is it just me, or do you only have to read a handful of these comments to see just how badly this movie is needed?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Ben, Ben, Ben, BEN !!!???
It’s all been said repeatedly in the comments above, so I’ll spare you by refraining from the obvious.
Please tell me that this is a publicity stunt and that at the end of the day you’ll be pulling a rabbit out of the hat! We were convinced you were a bright man…, this cannot be!? I’m awaiting the brilliant unveiling of some kind of oxymoron of sorts. Please don’t disappoint us, or many will feel like they’ve never really had any sense of judgment at all. Can you really be this cloistered in your thinking??? Oi!
Simply aghast!
Ross
August 28th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I am with Ben Stein on this matter and I am no “confidence man.” This blog is contaminated with congenital atheist mystics who keep coughing up the same old Darwinian pablum with gay abandon. It is beautiful!
I am obviously wasting my time here, but I enjoy the rare opportunity to hold forth on a blog whose sponsor is not likely to ban me. Any port in a storm I always say. I will continue to embarrass the Darwinian illiterates as long as I can, wherever I can. At my age exposing ideologues of all persuasions has become my favorite pastime, whether they be Bible-thumping “Fundies” or chance-worshipping, mutation intoxicated “Darwimps.” They are all the same to this old physiologist. Physiology is the study of how living processes work and neither of these two factions has a clue!
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein
Long before Einstein, Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog,” offered a similar appraisal.
“Of all the senseless babble I have ever had the occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosphers who try to prove that there is no God.”
Henrietta A Huxley, Aphorisms and Reflections from the Works of T.H. Huxley, page 3.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Wow, it is about time!!!!!! I do not understand why so many people believe in evolution? I am so excited for this film, hopefully it will make millions question their beliefs, and yes Evolution is in itself a religion - a Godless one.
For more info please check out BLOG #285
God Bless America!
August 28th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Louis:
I don’t see much ad hominem against Mr. Stein here at all. Most of what I see is of the “I respected Ben Stein but now he has made a fool of himself” type.
An ad hominem would be “this film will be stupid, because Ben Stein is an arsehole”. In contrast, I think that this film will in fact be stupid, but because it is about ID, or “Creation Science”. False Premise? I think not. ID as a scientific theory is demonstrably stupid. I can prove it on scratch paper with a pen.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“Sarah M. Bahlman
Wow, it is about time!!!!!! I do not understand why so many people believe in evolution? I am so excited for this film, hopefully it will make millions question their beliefs, and yes Evolution is in itself a religion - a Godless one.”
Ah no, evolution is not a religion.
Evolution & Religion:
It has become common for critics of evolution to claim that it is a religion which is being improperly supported by the government when it is taught in schools. No other facet of science is singled out for this treatment, at least not yet, but it is part of a wider effort to undermine naturalistic science. An examination of the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, reveals just how wrong such claims are: evolution is not a religion or a religious belief system because it does not possess the characteristics of religions.
Belief in Supernatural Beings:
Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religions is the belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Very few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does evolution involve belief in supernatural beings like god? No. Evolutionary theory neither encourages nor discourages it. Evolution is accepted by theists and atheists, regardless of their position on the existence of the supernatural. The mere existence or nonexistence of supernatural beings is ultimately irrelevant to evolutionary theory.
Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of the supernatural. Some atheists may have things, places, or times which they treat as “sacred” in that they venerate them in some way. Does evolution involve such a distinction? No — even a casual reading of explanations of evolutionary theory reveals that it involves no sacred places, times, or objects. Distinctions between the sacred and the profane play no role in and are as irrelevant to evolutionary theory as they are to every other aspect of science.
Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals which are associated with that which is considered sacred. As with the very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing about evolution which either mandates such a belief or prohibits it. Most important is the fact that there are no rituals which are part of evolutionary theory itself. Biologists involved with the study of evolution engage in no incantations or ritual acts of any sort in their research.
Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
Most religions preach some sort of moral code and, typically, this code is based upon whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Evolutionary theory does have something to say about the origins of morality, but only as a natural development. Evolution does not promote any particular moral code. Morality isn’t irrelevant to evolution, but it plays no fundamental or necessary role.
Characteristically Religious Feelings:
The vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of “religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are connected to the presence of the supernatural. The study of the natural world can promote feelings of awe in scientists, including evolutionary biologists, and some are led to their research by feelings of awe about nature. Evolutionary theory itself, however, does not explicitly endorse any sort of “religious” feelings or religious experiences.
Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Some who accept evolution believe in a god and therefore probably pray; others don’t. Because there is nothing about evolutionary theory which encourages or discourages belief in the supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer. Whether a person prays or not is as irrelevant in evolution as it is in other fields of the natural sciences.
A World View & Organization of One’s Life Based on the World View:
Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how to structure their lives: how to relate to others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc. Evolution provides data people may use in a worldview, but it is not a worldview itself and doesn’t say anything about how to organize your life or incorporate knowledge of evolution into your life. It can be part of theistic or atheistic, conservative or liberal worldviews. The worldview a person has is ultimately irrelevant in the study of evolution, though one’s study won’t go far unless one uses a scientific and naturalistic methodology.
A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
Few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways; most religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. People who study evolution also belong to groups which are bound together by science generally or evolutionary biology in particular, but those groups are not bound together by all the above because none of the above is inherent in evolution or science. Scientists are bound together by their scientific and naturalistic methodology as well as their study of the natural world, but that alone cannot constitute a religion.
Who Cares? Comparing and Contrasting Evolution & Religion:
Does it matter whether evolutionary theory is a religion or not? It appears to matter a great deal to those who make the claim despite the fact that doing so misrepresents religion, evolution, and science generally. Are they simply unaware of the differences between religion and science? Perhaps some are, especially given how many people tend to use very simplistic definitions of both religion and science, but I suspect that many leaders of the Christian Right are not so ignorant. Instead, I think they are arguing in a deliberately disingenuous manner in order to blur the distinctions between religion and science.
Godless, atheistic science is no respecter of tradition. Over the years, science has forced the revision or abandonment of many traditional religious beliefs. People think that there need be no conflict between religion and science, but so long as religion make empirical claims about the world we live in, conflict will be inevitable because that’s precisely what science does — and most of the time, science’s answers or explanations contradict those offered by supernatural religions. In a fair comparison, religion always loses because its claims are consistently wrong while science consistently expands our knowledge and our ability to live well.
Religious believers who are unwilling to abandon making empirical claims and are unhappy with their ability to challenge science directly have sometimes opted for undermining people’s willingness to rely on science. If people believe that science generally or at least one part of science, like evolutionary biology, is just another religious faith, then perhaps Christians will be as unwilling to accept this as they are unwilling to adopt Islam or Hinduism. If science and evolution are just another religion, it may be easier to dismiss them.
A more honest approach would be to acknowledge that while non-religious themselves, science generally and evolutionary biology in particular do make challenges on many religious beliefs. This forces people to confront those beliefs more directly and critically than they might otherwise have done. If those beliefs are sound, then believers shouldn’t be concerned about such challenges. Avoiding these difficult issues by pretending that science is religious does no one any good.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Leonard Black:
Stop the presses! Hold your horses! Leonard Black is about to prove on “scratch paper with a pen” that ID as a scientific theory is demonstrably stupid!
You have our attention now Mr. Black… We are all breathless with anticipation for the very next syllable that might protrude from that self proclaimed enlightened mind of yours.
Excuse my sarcasm this time but really… “demonstrably stupid?” Could you be any more arrogant? Welcome to the “Bigots” club Leonard.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The great Ben Stine says this is about freedom of inquiry. Well Ben I agree with freedom of inquiry. I don’t believe in teaching religion or pseudo-science in a science classroom. To expect the scientific community to take Intelligent Design as science because of propaganda or religious beliefs is detrimental to the pursuit of science.
Have the ID’ist pursue Intelligent Design as science using the scientific method? NO!
Have the ID’ist pursue Intelligent Design as science though the methodical process of scientific discovery? NO!
Have more than one peer review paper pass for an actual scientific discovery? NO! (So far they have only one peer review paper and all of it has been shown to be evolution not ID to be the mechanisms change.)
So far the ID’ist are whining and crying about their Intelligent Design. No real scientific inquiry. Just political mambo jumbo with religious dogmatic propaganda.
If you really want Intelligent Design in science you have to go though the same methodical process as Big Band theory did. Big Bang Theory was considered religious when it was first proposed.
We do not want to stop your scientific inquery, we want you to stop your propaganda and political (as the Libertarians Penn and Teller would say) bullshit!
We need to teach our children to understand why this bullshit is not science. To inquire what is science, inquire what is the scientific method, and to inquire why ID is not science.
I inquire all ID’ist, do you know what is science, it’s criteria, and the method it uses?
August 28th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Leonard,
There is much in the way of “poisoning the well” that is taking place before anyone has even seen the film. Yet the film and its content have nothing to do with Stein. The substance of most attacks to this block are indeed forms of ad hominem.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Evolution theory requires just as much of a leap of faith as does ID. In fact maybe even more if you understand the statistical probability of DNA mutating to where it is today. All the evolutionists ask for evidence of ID but where is the evolutionist’s evidence. Darwin’s evidence has all been discredited. Show us one example of a simple organism becoming a complex organism. There is no evidence at all. Of course animals adapt over years to their enviroment but these are small adaptations within the same animal. For man to have evolved from the primordial ooze there would have to be billions of “missing links” to get to where we are today. Show us evidence of just one please! The religion of evolution is to just have faith that they did occur even without proof. The belief in evolution also allows you to avoid any of that pesky morality stuff to make you uncomfortable with you current lifestyle.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Well this is telling: PZ Myers has received a reply from the fraudulent EXPELLED movie producer (reference my name link above, or if it doesn’t work here’s the full URL: scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/expelled_producer_seems_to_be.php )
For such an upstanding human being Mr. Mathis seems awfully DEFENSIVE, don’t you think, ID apologists? By the “logic” you seem to use (Darwinists are complaining about this movie so it must be true!”), it seems Mr. Mathis must agree that he is a dishonest quote-mining scam artist!
———————————————————-
PZ: wrote to Mark Mathis about his movie, Expelled, which I was told was going to be called Crossroads. Here is the entirety of my message:
Hey, I just learned today that the actual film is now called “Expelled”, that it features Ben Stein, and that it’s really a gung- ho pro-creationism/anti-science film. I would have agreed to be interviewed even if you’d been honest with me about the subject — I’m not reticent about my opinions — so I don’t understand why you felt you had to conceal your intent. Care to explain yourself? Was this the movie you planned from the beginning?
Now I’ve gotten his reply!
Mr. Myers,
Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and I wish you the best in all your endeavors.
What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn’t honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?
I think the underhanded way he obtained interviews with some of his subjects is a sore point that he’d rather not discuss. I guess I can’t blame him — if I’d had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I’d probably be a bit shamefaced, too.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Can any of the “empirical scientists” on this blog show me a neutron or a proton? I haven’t seen one so I don’t believe they exist!
How about oxygen?
August 28th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I’m impressed. Something like this takes courage that most don’t have. Science is the last concept that should ban specific ideas.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Do you anti-evolutionists get flu shots? If you do can you explain why as their development is based on the principles of evolution.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ben I wanted to attack your argument but too many people have already done such a nice job of it, already. There are not too many ways to defend ‘GOD’, so I will expect to see some of the same old arguments - false dichotomies, straw-man arguments and mis-information, in this propaganda piece as well.
I hope you have the decency to NOT delete any of the comments or criticisms posted here. Between me to you, “You actually did this for the money right?”
August 28th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Thanks javascript.
It’s a shame that the world has come to a point where freedom of speech is so censored. I just think everything on both sides should be laid out on the table in public view and let the individuals who occupy this earth make their own decisions.
I was also read here about a rabbit fossil, so I found this:
http://www.talkingsquid.net/archives/133
I have to wonder how many of our youths are reading this, and they actually may have that open mind to look at both sides, and are able to come to their own conclusions. With all this fuss the adults here are making, I bet their curiosity is getting the best of them.
~M
August 28th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
oh, and as for the rabbit fossil, I’m not trying to say anything with it, I just happened upon it doing a search. I was merely just curious if one had been found.
~M
August 28th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
javascrip,
Ignorant to the end arn’t ya.
You think just one mutation creates a species? You are ignorant
DNA.
Even then, do you even know what constitutes a new species. Do you know every animal dead or alive is a transitional form?
You can say all you want javascript, but your ignorance of scientific theories and facts makes you look as dumb as the guys at AiG trying to redefine science. You do not have the authority nor the knoledge to dea
Another thing Javascript, I worked in the field of medical field collecting data for researchers on genetic diseases.
Again Javascript,
DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS SCIENCE?
DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR SOMETHING TO BE SCIENTIFIC?
“You continue to re-post the same arguments over and over and over again,
regardless of how many people respond to the false acusations you make concerning ID and Evolution.
Really, so its the scientist who is pushing false information not the creationist. BULLSHIT. So when we post the fallacies of their logic and debunk their claims with empirical evidence, they continue to use it as evidence, doesn’t that sound to be disingenuous and out right lieing when using data that they know to be false.
I find if funny that you are indicating that most scientist lie and pass out false information when all their data cross-correlate
You sound like afdave form many forum post.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=210241
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675
I bet you even believe Genesis and Exodus is history accurate.
“You keep saying ID has no evidence, only faith, implying that evolution has hard core facts, which we all know it does not. Both I.D. and Evolutionary studies derive their THEORIES from the same scientific evidence. Did you hear me say that again? I and other can keep saying that a few more thousand times if you like. Are you listening? You say all ID has is assumptions???”
Really? funny even most of the prominent ID’ist even agree that its more likely evolution that constitutes change. Behe himself has since confessed to “sloppy prose”, and that his “argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.
“What facts do you have of what you believe? Can you prove random mutation creates new species? Can you give me an example on one time that has happened. What two species were involved?”
Your ignorance in evolutionary theory is even so present when you claim one mutation creates a new species?
“You’re realy only defending a faith, theory and religion, whether you want to admit it or not. And why would you fight so hard to destroy any form of science that is only attempting to dig further to learn more. Are you afraid of what might be found?”
Your ignorance on what is science is even more present here.
“What makes you think your views and those of the hard core evolutionary science world have the right to keep a stranglehold on what is or is not going to be studied in science. You are the one who is terribly ill-informed over what studies are being done by scientists who doubt darwinian evolution.”
Funny I said that if Intelligent Design want to be considered it has to go though the same methodical process as with any scientific theory. Please post some real research going on on Intelligent Design. I mean real research. Not propaganda.
“You are the one who is sounding foolish because it’s very clear that you are unaware of what they really do and you’re fighting with all your strength like you know it all.”
Please, quit with the bliss. Your ad homen attacks just make you even look more ignorant.
If you cant provide any real evidence, you’re not worth even inquiring about. I have higher standard for truth than assumptions.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“Well. That settles it then. Intricate biological designs are just simply guaranteed to pour out of this process. It’s as clear as the Pythagorean theorem. Only mental deficiency would nitpick such an elegant all-sufficient process. It just plain has to be true. Can’t you SEE?!?”
You asked a question. I gave an answer. Your snide response suggests that you cannot actually rebut my explanation, but you feel the need for an immature ranting nonetheless.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“Can any of the “empirical scientists” on this blog show me a neutron or a proton? I haven’t seen one so I don’t believe they exist!”
Do you have an argument that is not rooted in a dishonest strawman?
August 28th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“Evolution theory requires just as much of a leap of faith as does ID.”
I know that this is a common claim of ID pushers and creationists, but please understand that your claim is a lie no matter how popular you may think that it is.
“In fact maybe even more if you understand the statistical probability of DNA mutating to where it is today.”
I note that you offered no statistics to back up your assertion.
“All the evolutionists ask for evidence of ID but where is the evolutionist’s evidence.”
Evidence exists in the fossil record and in the DNA patterns across extant species. Your ignorance of the evidence does not negate the existence of the evidence.
“Darwin’s evidence has all been discredited.”
To what discredited evidence do you refer? Please be specific, state both the alleged evidence and show that it has been discredited.
“Show us one example of a simple organism becoming a complex organism.”
Please clarify your request, and explain how it relates to the discussion.
“There is no evidence at all.”
This statement is false. You are lying.
“Of course animals adapt over years to their enviroment but these are small adaptations within the same animal.”
Please justify your claim with evidence.
“For man to have evolved from the primordial ooze there would have to be billions of “missing links” to get to where we are today.”
Please support your assertion regarding this numerical analysis. Show all mathematics involved.
“Show us evidence of just one please!”
Australopithecus afarensis
“The religion of evolution is to just have faith that they did occur even without proof.”
Calling evolution a “religion” does not demonstrate that evolution is, in fact, a religion. It does, however, suggest that you hold religion in disdain.
“The belief in evolution also allows you to avoid any of that pesky morality stuff to make you uncomfortable with you current lifestyle.”
This statement is false, and you are a liar for making it.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
During the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, the A.C.L.U. said that we should not be so bigoted and narrow-minded as to teach only one theory of Origins in science classrooms . . . that BOTH creation and evolution should be taught.
Sounds like good advice to me . .
What say you?
August 28th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“You prove my point Dimensio….”
In what way did I “prove your point”? Please be specific.
“I read some of your other posts including the reply you gave to my post above. You use some very strong words to describe people who just want to hear both sides of an argument.”
You are establishing a false dichotomy in suggesting that there are two sides to an argument.
“You call people who don’t subscribe to your point of view “vehement anti-science fascists, lazy, dishonest, liars who are fundamentally dishonest, and intellectually without merit”…”
You are a liar. I have never referred to anyone as an “anti-science fascist”. I have never referred to anyone here as “lazy”. When I have described others as potentially dishonest, I have explained where the dishonesty occured.
“Then you inferred that because I personally don’t believe that we are all just, in your words, “all cosmic accidents”, then I must be in a state of denial.”
You are lying again. I did not claim that you are in a “state of denial” for not believing that we are “all cosmic accidents”. Moreover “all cosmic accidents” was not my phrase. I was quoting Brian Barkley, who claimed that all who accept evolution believe that we are “All cosmic accidents”. His claim was false, believing that we are “all cosmic accidents” is not a logical conclusion of accepting the theory of evolution.
It would appear that you are not in any way addressing my statements. Instead, you are lying about my statements, and even attributing to me statements that I have never made. Why do you believe that your claims have any merit when you are being so transparently dishonest?
“I wrote in my post that I wanted to hear both sides of the story because I try to stay open minded about this issue as well as others.”
Why do you believe that there are two sides of a “story”?
“Does this make me a fool?”
No. It could indicate merely that you are uneducated upon the specific subject of life origins. It says nothing whatsoever of your intellectual capacity in general, nor of your education in any other field.
“I enjoy reading about human history (including what is written in the Bible) as much as I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel show how some shark species have not changed much at all for millions of years.”
This is irrelevant to the subject of biology.
“I admit that I don’t know how it all came together.”
The field of biology, of which the theory of evolution is a subset, does not address “how it all came together”. Your statement is a non-sequitur.
“The problem is, neither were you, yet you deny that it could have ever happen except through evolution and random chance.”
I have denied nothing. You are, once more, lying about me. You are also misrepresenting evolution, which operates upon more than “random chance”.
“I don’t think so.”
Irrelevant. Your argument is founded upon a false premise.
“Maybe the “feature” that needs to evolve in this discussion is your tolerance of other people’s beliefs.”
As your claim is predicated upon demonstratable lies regarding my behaviour here, your suggestion is meaningless.
“You are so sure that you are right. Everyone else must be some sort of right-wing Nazi Torquemadas to question the status quo of Darwinism.”
I have made no such statements. You are, once more, lying.
“Let me guess… you are a liberal secularist or possibly even a devoted atheist and your hero’s are Al Franken and Al Gore.”
I am a libertarian who despises welfare programs, hates wasteful government spending regardless of which political party is doing it and who opposes nearly all forms of gun control.
Your assumptions about me are completely false. It is not surprising that you would come to incorrect conclusions about my personality, however, given your apparent willingness to fabricate statements that you then falsely attribute to me.
“Here is some wisdom for you if you decide to hear:”
This is relevant neither to the subject of biology nor to your lies about my character.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
The premise of this movie reminds me of that great scene in Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail: Help help we’re being repressed!
I hereby call on Ben Stein and anyone who opposes evolution to immediately and permanently vow to give up ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that was developed fully or in part with principles from evolution. This includes any technology, theory, economic principle or medical device or treatment that was developed though the applied use of concepts based on evolution. You would be free, of course to use anything derived from intelligent design. Refusal to accept this challenge constitutes admission that ID is not a science and does not deserve to be treated as such.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
For all the, “Show me the money” crowd:
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
Remember Ptolemy was right once upon a time. Still think the Earth is the center of everyting?
Nuff said.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
For the, “Show me the money” crowd:
In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
Remember, Ptolemy was right once upon a time.
Nuff Said.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
To ck1 (post # 801):
You wrote “Do you anti-evolutionists get flu shots? If you do can you explain why as their development is based on the principles of evolution.”
I THINK I know what you’re getting at.
Can you explain why antibiotic-resistant bacteria are STILL just BACTERIA, and haven’t become gnats or mosquitoes or even algae? Where’s the evolution (one KIND of organism mutating into another KIND of organism)?
According to the evolutionists’ own vision, bacteria always have been bacteria and apparently have never evolved into anything else. See far left side of the grand “Tree of Life”…
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html
Can you explain this non-evolution despite the alleged billions of years of “change time”?
August 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Well, there seems to be an enough confused thinking in the mix of discussion here. I’ll try not to add to it but just ask an opinion of those manifesting evangelical zeal in advocacy of an inerrant Darwinism. I have just three relatively simple questions.
1) Where does one find a Darwinian claim that life ORIGINATED through reproduction, mutation and natural selection of the most fit? It would certainly appear that reproducing entities must exist first for true Darwinian processes to kick in.
2) If Darwinism is so secure, why all the furor and purported “scientific” denunciation of those who see reason to question overreaching claims on it’s behalf? Please contrast this with physics and cosmology were interesting questions about general relativity are treated with normal scientific courtesy and allowed to stand and be tested on their merit rather than drummed off the stage without investigation.
3) Isn’t there just a bit of circular logic in using the limited number, there are some, of peer-reviewed publications questioning Darwinian claims to support not allowing someone know to harbor doubts from obtaining or retaining secure positions from which such research can be conducted?
August 28th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
To James (post # 811):
Are you saying “technology, theory, economic principle or medical device or treatment” are NOT the result of applied human intelligence/design?
I was under the assumption that the computer, through which I sent this blog comment, was not an accident having just the appearance of planning and design.
I have no problem accepting your challenge. You, on the other hand, will be unable to blog back to me.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Walt Ruloff the producer of Expelled has granted a two part interview through www.IDTheFuture.org explaining the movie and why he is taking a stand against the Academy of Darwin:
See:
http://tinyurl.com/2selnm
Ruloff relates how “disruptive technologies” advanced the high-tech industry and how neo-Darwinism is a science stopper because it prevents the evolution of “disruptive technologies”.
He expresses the highly negative consequences of neo-Darwinism to the advancement of medical research, advancement of science, and the matriculation of large numbers of scientists through the educational system. Enjoy!
August 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
IDE
1) You’ve pointed out a good reason why abiogenesis and evolution are commonly viewed as different subjects. Evolution begins after the first primordial replicator.
2) Whatever your profession is, imagine some nitwit throwing hairbrained, abstract ideas at you, constantly misquoting you, lying, questioning your creativity and intelligence, telling you that experience in your field is irrelevant, etc., etc. What’s more, imagine that a very large % of the American people side with the nitwit, and you’re told that “your frustration merely proves that the nitwit is correct”.
3) The argument for ID is the intellectual equivalent of short basketball players arguing that they’re victims of discrimination. Scour this blog, the Discovery Institute website, and you’ll find these guys have next-to-nothing in the way of lab-based research proposals. They can’t even conceive of what they’d do. ID doesn’t generate new information about the real world…its raison d’etre is simply to cut down evolution.
I don’t doubt that Stein will be able to dig up a case or two of real discrimination. The world is not fair, and sometimes people are not nice. But to infer some big conspiracy where genius IDers are getting shut out of the system…that’s utter bunk.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Isn’t it interesting that those who believe in the THEORY of Darwinian evolution demand scientific PROOF that any other explanation is credible. Sure, Micro-Evolution can be seen all around us. But macro-evolution, the one sticking point that all this is REALLY about, has never and can never be scientifically proven either!! Show me one fossil that proves macro-evolution. Can’t do it? Didn’t think so.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
First of all, I am truly eager to see the movie and will support Mr. Stein in this matter by telling all of my students about the film and encourage them to see it.
Second, the bashing and personal attacks are just so typical, that it validates the reason why the movie is being made. It further proves the insecurity of the Darwinian community and attempts to degrade any who don’t accept the flawed theory of natural selection without question.
With more and more scientists every year seemingly opening up to the idea of ID, I see a renaissance of truth on the horizon…God Bless…
August 28th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Ben Stein
You will find my comments numbers 641, 666, 690, 743, 788 tucked away among some of the most mindless statements I have ever observed on an internet blog. Since my presence has gone unrecognized here, it is obvious that this format is useless as an intellectual vehicle. This is typical of internet blogs generally, most of which are just therapy for unfulfilled out patients to vent their personal spleens to their precious heart’s content. I recommend that you demand that every poster reveal his true identity and any credentials (if he has any) if you expect anything to come of this endless exercise. You may find me at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum where I post primarily on the threads based on my own publications. Comments from anonymous sources have no validity whatsoever. The practice should never have been allowed. Imagine a scientific literature with unknown authors.
I rank blogs on the frequency of anonymity. The higher the anonymity the lower the quality. This one is right down there with After The Bar Closes and Pharyngula. Sorry to have to say that. Good luck!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 28th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Marty…evolution occurs wherever you see a branch on that tree. In other words, what was once a single branch is now two.
Bear in mind that the chart is extremely simplified. E coli, for example, has been known to inject plasmid DNA into yeasts.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Thank you Ide for asking instead of making claim of ignorance (True Inquiry are questions not claims of propaganda.)
1) Where does one find a Darwinian claim that life ORIGINATED through reproduction, mutation and natural selection of the most fit? It would certainly appear that reproducing entities must exist first for true Darwinian processes to kick in.
Reproducing is evolution. That is one thing that most people who think Intelligent Design as science don’t understand. Evolution is the passing of traits from generation to generation. People claim there are no trational forms or fosils. Every life on this planet dead or alive is a transitional fosil. You yourself are a living transtional fossil. Most mutations that are passed on happend during meiosis (The evidence point towards evolution of the diffrent sexes because of the limitations of Miosis.)
“2) If Darwinism is so secure, why all the furor and purported “scientific” denunciation of those who see reason to question overreaching claims on it’s behalf? Please contrast this with physics and cosmology were interesting questions about general relativity are treated with normal scientific courtesy and allowed to stand and be tested on their merit rather than drummed off the stage without investigation.”
Would you teach 1+1=3 in a math class?
Here is the problem. There is legitimate research going into Intelligent Design, not propaganda like AiG or this Movie.
So far the research has come up with nothing new. No new discoveries. All evidence for ID have been shown that evolution is the cause. The only thing that is new is the assumption of a designer without a frame of reference or evidence of a designer.
And when debated and its evidence to be proven wrong, the propaganda machine, like this Movie or AiG, still try to use that same evidence as proof. Isn’t that being at least disingenuous and in the end fraudulence.
3) Isn’t there just a bit of circular logic in using the limited number, there are some, of peer-reviewed publications questioning Darwinian claims to support not allowing someone know to harbor doubts from obtaining or retaining secure positions from which such research can be conducted?
Huh? There are plenty of people who believe in Intelligent Design, but they understand it is religion or philosophy outside of science. Intelligent design as it stands doesn’t make any new predictions, is an absolute, and doesn’t come up with any new questions. Accepting Intelligent Design would be saying everything on we know comes from god as an acceptable answer to anything in science. Sorry that just doesn’t cut it.
I really recommend watching this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0
If you can, you can watch all of Beyond Belief at http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/
And if possible watch Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists, Especially Ken Miller (he is a creationist). http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/The%20Scientists.html
Like Neil deGrasse Tyson (who happens to sit on W Bush’s Scientific Staff), I want to teach Intelligent Design as part of the history of science. Not as science but part of its history. To show how it is ignorance, how it is God in gaps.
“Even if you’re brilliant as Newton, you reach a point and start basking in majesty of God, and then your discovery stops. It just stops! You’re kind of no good anymore for advancing that frontier. Waiting for someone else to come behind you, who doesn’t have God on the brain, and says “that a really cool problem and I want to solve it.” They come in and solve it.”
Intelligent Design is real in the history of science. We should teach it as history not Science but not science but as Neil deGrasse Tyson said - “Simply put, religion is a philosophy of ignorance; Science is a philosophy of discovery”
August 28th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I see no ID apologist is willing to address my earlier question of whether the ridiculous defensiveness of the movies deceptive producer who interviewed PZ Myers under false pretenses makes it obvious that he knows his own tactics are fraudulent,
August 28th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Good grief, Ben. Et tu Brute? This is more disappointing than when I found out Santa isn’t real. What happened to you man? You used to be cool.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Ben,
Your central hypothesis is this:
“Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.”
Your hypothesis is falsified by prominent scientists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins.
To be wrong is to have learned something. Please re-evaluate the evidence and reconsider your position.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Troylus…the movie has been made. Posterity will see Stein as a latecomer in the Republican war on science.
Only in the U.S. could you have this rabble-rousing against established science. You’d think South Africa, Venezuela, Cuba, or somebody, would be clamoring to get hold of all those brilliant ID scientists.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Apparently the numbering system here is not stable.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Note that the deceptive way in which the interviews in the film were taken reminds one of the Holocaust deniers’ tactics.
Denier David Cole pretended to be an honest interviewer to somehow “trap” Dr. F. Piper of the Auschwitz Museum. His simplistic and misleading video was well-received by the deniers. Here’s what Dr. Piper had to say:
“[Cole] deceitfully introduced himself as a man who wanted to convince his acquaintances in America that Auschwitz was really a place of genocide”
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.py?people/c/cole.david/press/piper.letter.1093
Wow. Anyone excusing the makers of this film for deception will also have to excuse Holocaust denier Cole’s tactics.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:52 am
Dear Ben,
Why are you recruiting children to force intelligent design into the science classroom? We have already seen how this kind of thing can throw school boards into turmoil, forcing parents and teachers to choose between a shoddy education for the kids and a costly lawsuit. And school boards often have very little money!
So, since you believe so sincerely in ID and have plenty of money (unlike most school boards), WHY DON’T YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND START FUNDING ID RESEARCH? This would be taking the straight and narrow path– convince the majority of scientists first, and ID will in due course become part of the science curriculum. (You see, for some reason, most scientists aren’t as impressed by slick movies and big celebrities as they are by rigorous research.)
So what do you think, Ben? I look forward to hearing from you soon.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:03 am
“Can you explain why antibiotic-resistant bacteria are STILL just BACTERIA, and haven’t become gnats or mosquitoes or even algae? Where’s the evolution (one KIND of organism mutating into another KIND of organism)?”
Please define “kind” as it relates to the field of biology. Without such a definition, your question has no meaning.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:12 am
“1) Where does one find a Darwinian claim that life ORIGINATED through reproduction, mutation and natural selection of the most fit? It would certainly appear that reproducing entities must exist first for true Darwinian processes to kick in.”
This is correct. This is why the subject of abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. Many creationists attempt to question life origins when discussing the theory of evolution. This is typically either because they have done no research and they are arguing from a position of total ignorance, or because they are lying. Often it is both.
Note that “Darwinian” is archaic, and suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of biology. The theory of evolution has been advanced significantly since Darwin’s time.
“2) If Darwinism is so secure, why all the furor and purported “scientific” denunciation of those who see reason to question overreaching claims on it’s behalf?”
This is because the alleged “reason” involved in questioning the theory of evolution is, in fact, based solely upon religious motives, and not actual science. This is demonstratable in the writings of those who claim to be questioning the theory. Frequently these individuals attack the theory of evolution based upon demonstratable falsehoods and unambigious dishonesty.
“Please contrast this with physics and cosmology were interesting questions about general relativity are treated with normal scientific courtesy and allowed to stand and be tested on their merit rather than drummed off the stage without investigation.”
You are misrepresenting the debate. No one is “drumming” anyone off of a stage without investigation. The claims of “Intelligent Design” have been investigated. They have been found to be without merit. Their arguments in support have been shown to be false, and those making the arguments have been exposed as having a non-scientific agenda.
“3) Isn’t there just a bit of circular logic in using the limited number, there are some, of peer-reviewed publications questioning Darwinian claims to support not allowing someone know to harbor doubts from obtaining or retaining secure positions from which such research can be conducted?”
Your question would appear to be founded upon a false premise. No one is preventing anyone attaining or retaining a position from which research showing error in the theory of evolution may be conducted. You will find that the alleged “expelled” professors were in fact denied tenure not because of their attempts to question the theory of evolution, but because their performance was not up to par with tenured scientists, regardless of their position regarding the theory of evolution. Pro-ID groups have dishonestly misrepresented the facts as a means of creating a false impression of deliberate descrimination against those who reject a given scientific theory. This is because pro-ID groups have no arguments of any actual merit.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
“Second, the bashing and personal attacks are just so typical, that it validates the reason why the movie is being made. It further proves the insecurity of the Darwinian community and attempts to degrade any who don’t accept the flawed theory of natural selection without question.”
Your reasoning is illogical. The scorn and derision that an alleged documentary receieves is not an indicator of the validity of the claims made within the documentary.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
“Isn’t it interesting that those who believe in the THEORY of Darwinian evolution demand scientific PROOF that any other explanation is credible. ”
No, they don’t. You are lying.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Ben -
If the commentary on this blog is any indication, then your movie should be a huge success. The self-righteous indignation from self-professed scientists and Darwinists is very telling. Evolution as fact is supposed to be settled … scientific fact through consensus. Any threats to that meme must be trampled down with religious fervor (irony intended) - in much the same way as the Man-made Global Warming acolytes shout down those who dare to question their religion.
I submit that those who have more than a superficial understanding of Darwinism - and still choose to believe it unquestioningly - rely as much on faith in the unseen/unproven as do those who adhere to intelligent design.
Keep up the good work Ben! There are many who do “get you” and continue to support you.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:38 am
My previous posting was devoid of meaningful explanation. I shall attempt to remedy that deficiency at this time.
“Isn’t it interesting that those who believe in the THEORY of Darwinian evolution demand scientific PROOF that any other explanation is credible.”
There is no flaw in demanding evidence that a given explanation is credible. Explanations without evidence of credibility are not worth consideration. Are you attempting to suggest otherwise? How, exactly, would one examine a statement that has no credibility?
“Sure, Micro-Evolution can be seen all around us. But macro-evolution, the one sticking point that all this is REALLY about, has never and can never be scientifically proven either!!”
Please explain the fundamental difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution.
“Show me one fossil that proves macro-evolution. Can’t do it? Didn’t think so.”
Nothing in science is ever proven. This does not mean that science must consider explanations whose credibility has not been demonstrated. Your entire post is a series of non-sequiturs.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am
“I was under the assumption that the computer, through which I sent this blog comment, was not an accident having just the appearance of planning and design.”
False analogy. Computers are neither themselves imperfectly replicating entities nor are they composed of imperfectly replicating entities. Comparing computers to biological structures is fundamentally dishonest.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Thanks for responding Crasch. To save chasing up I had asked, “1) Where does one find a Darwinian claim that life ORIGINATED through reproduction, mutation and natural selection of the most fit? It would certainly appear that reproducing entities must exist first for true Darwinian processes to kick in.
You responded, “Reproducing is evolution.”
It seems to me that endorses my point. Darwinian mechanisms can’t/shouldn’t be invoked to extrapolate to an explanation for the first life, whatever that might have been.
But in response to my “2) If Darwinism is so secure, why all the furor and purported “scientific” denunciation of those who see reason to question overreaching claims on it’s behalf? Please contrast this with physics and cosmology were interesting questions about general relativity are treated with normal scientific courtesy and allowed to stand and be tested on their merit rather than drummed off the stage without investigation.”
You responded “Would you teach 1+1=3 in a math class?” But, Crasch, as I see it , that has little to do with the central issue raised in Expelled. The evolutionist axe has fallen on highly qualified scientists just for what the BELIEVE, not what they TEACH.
1. Top my “3) Isn’t there just a bit of circular logic in using the limited number, there are some, of peer-reviewed publications questioning Darwinian claims to support not allowing someone know to harbor doubts from obtaining or retaining secure positions from which such research can be conducted?”
2. Your response is “Huh? There are plenty of people who believe in Intelligent Design, but they understand it is religion or philosophy outside of science. “
3.
4. Now we may be getting to the heart of the issue. Ken Miller’s views remain a bit of a mystery to me. But passing to Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris who I feel both believe in the Christian understanding of God as Creator. They appear opposed to ID as they understand it. For reasons not clear to me it is the suggestion that the fingerprints of the Creator can be found in His work that bothers them. Hence no one should teach methods for finding those fingerprints or assert that evidence at hand is in fact supports inference of intelligent intervention in the causal flow of events. But Collins is at least clear that he sees no evidence supporting claims that an explanation for first life is on the horizon.
As to my views, full disclosure: I’m an evangelical Christian, even, gasp, a Southern Baptist! My private heresy is to see both Darwinian interpretations and those of Intelligent Design advocates as conclusions based on available evidence. At the frontiers of knowledge scientists of both persuasions use identical methods . Someone has termed the process “Inference to the best explanation.” Darwinian jihadists seem to want to rule out of consideration, a priori, certain ideas they don’t like. That could be a big mistake if one of those ideas held the key to understanding don’t you think?
Both sides are guilty of making grander claims than they can support at times. But it is my reading of the gross trends of scientific understanding that ever since general relativity was shown to be incompatible with a steady state universe the ground has been slowly but steadily eroding under support for Darwinian evolution much beyond the diffuse boundary between micro and macro evolution.
Finally, Crasch, let me say your suggestion to teach ID as history, rather than science, interests me. But it’s not clear to me how you would propose doing that. Nor is it clear how you view SETI, forensic science, or cultural anthropology being taught or practiced if ID is excluded from the arsenal of scientific investigation.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Dear Evolutionary Scientist:
Using flu virus mutations, etc as proof of evolution misses the big picture and this is why there are so many sceptics of evolution. What ID and Creationists are arguing with you about is the molecules to man concept.
I hear nothing or little to convince me that evolutionists have addressed their grand assumption that little changes in organisms continue to add up without limitations.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Thank you Salvador T. Corodva for posting those links. I enjoyed listening to the interview.
Also, I wanted to comment, that there are IDer’s, Progressive Creationists and Young Earth Creationists. Each have their own thoughts on different subjects.
As for the negative responses toward Mr. Stein, it is not necessary. Mr. Stein is allowed freedom of inquiry as well as freedom of speech. I have much respect for Mr. Stein and those who believe that ppl should always ask questions, be open to everything, and have the opportunity to hear others opinions as well. Things should not be unilateral, especially in thought. Ppl have the right to choose from what kind of products they want to use, or what kind of apparel they want to wear as well as the right to choose how they arrived here on earth.
I would think ppl would be more concerned with stopping pedophiles and child abuse that goes on. Why crime rate is so high in an atheistic thinking world. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Jeffery Dahmer:
‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
Also
Dr. Terry Mortenson spoke of the Columbine Massacre of 1999. He said, Quote “Eric Harris, 18, had written, ‘Sometime in April me and V (Dylan Klebold, 17) will get revenge and will kick natural selection up a few notches.’ April 20, 1998. This event left 13 dead and 25 injured. One of those boys was wearing a t-shirt on that day that said “Natural Selection”. Dr. Mortenson went onto say, that we are not blaming evolution for their behavior, but evolution was clearly an influence in their behavior, and they were thinking “Well, it’s survival of the fittest.” Unquote
This tragic event happened on Hitler’s b-day.
So, I can say, an atheistic thinking world as per particles-to-people evolution in referring to the statements above.
Just as ppl debate against each other for presidency, ppl can debate their views in science and present their views as well. We hear all on who we should choose for president, we should have the right to hear all on the different views on the arrival of life as well.
Why do you think we have debates, so ppl can make decisions on who they think has the strongest argument and then logically come to their own conclusion and vote.
I’ve visited plenty of forums, and always see the same pattern, as soon as anyone brings up the subject of creation, Darwinism evolutionists suddenly jump in, saying what liars creationists are, they have no science behind their thought and how everyone HAS to believe particles-to-people evolution. No one has to believe anything but what they want to. As I stated in an earlier post, let’s bring on the debates between evolutionists and creationists in front of the world. This childish type behavior isn’t getting anywhere.
Another thing I do not agree with, is a teacher telling a student, a child they are ignorant for their beliefs. No one has the right to tell any child they are ignorant for what they believe.
A letter from the student who was told this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4297news5-9-2000.asp
And to Mr. John A. Davison who said, “Since my presence has gone unrecognized here … ” To me your presence has not gone unrecognized. I enjoy your posts very much. But I know what you are saying.
~M
August 29th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I did also want to make reference to those who talk of Ken Miller. Many will be interested to know that Ken Miller is a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic who promotes evolution. For those who would like, they can read more on Miller here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1213CTeditor.asp
~M
August 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Again, were Ben concerned over the real freedom issue, he’d be skewering IDists for censoring so many of their blogs. Dembski’s blog is well-known to be censored, and I linked to an example of this in #395.
ARN is the only ID forum I know about which is relatively uncensored. But, as any pro-science poster there knows, writing of the intellectual dishonesty of the IDists who post there is often censored, even though that’s the only remaining issue at stake once all of the ID “arguments” have been properly answered (and I don’t go there any more because of it).
One of the potentially best places for ID to be discussed, at Behe’s forum on Amazon, has had the comments disabled. Anyone can see this here (at least at the time of this posting):
http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2737726-3412629?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188403923&sr=8-1
Gee, you’d think that the “censored IDists” would jump at the chance to provide all of the “censored evidence” which supposedly is “prohibited” by the big bad anti-religionists (you know, including the 40% or so of scientists who are religious). But no, Behe hides behind a wall that keeps out all of the questions that he can’t answer (like why the Designer made yet another prediction of evolution come true, malarial parasites doing what evolved organisms do, taking energy and matter in any manner possible, but being limited to derived and modified components to do so), the requests for evidence that he can’t supply.
Indeed, there is a lack of openness and freedom which is worth investigating. It’s being caused by the IDists, who have never been able to compete in a the legitimate evidence-driven discourse of science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
August 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“And if possible watch Evolution vs. Creationism: Listen to the Scientists, Especially Ken Miller (he is a creationist).”
Absolutely not. Here’s video of Ken Miller criticising Intelligent Design creationism
August 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Amamzing- you guys are proving his point. To EVEN QUESTION evolution is sin. Yeah- you’re the open minded ones.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Are you kidding? Ben Stein is a song and dance man. I’m not sure he was ever ethical about anything.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Hey DRW,
ALL THE FOSSILS DO.
The mechanisms for micro and macroevolution are the same. There is no difference.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
But if you insist. Here’s 29+ reasons for macroevolution.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Ben,
Well done! Thank you for what you have done and for the courage to expose yourself to mindless ridicule.
We will eventually look back on evolution as we do when we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Evolution is a THEORY as is creation. Both are accepted on faith by their respective proponents. Evolutionists and creationists both have SCIENTIFIC evidence to support their theories but neither can be reproduced in a lab or proven by the scientific method.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Anyone post the “ID HYPEothesis” yet?
I’m still waiting.
Apparently its just “Not evolution, God did it. He makes bees fly too and he designed the banana!”
August 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Ben,
Go for it! Great to see someone exposing what is going on in academia today. Philosophical naturalism has become the ruling paradigm in the last few decades, and we need to do something about it. We must demand academic freedom and allow critical thinking once again in science classes, like we encourage in every other discipline.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I’ve got some waiting time right now, so I figure why not go through most of Ben’s “points”?
–I’m glad you found this site, because I want to share with you my thoughts from time to time here about a subject that is very near and dear to me: freedom.–
Yes, freedom, the right to do meaningful science, and to be tried according to the evidence, not according to religious notions which fail empirical tests.
–EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed is a controversial, soon-to-be-released documentary that chronicles my confrontation with the widespread suppression and entrenched discrimination that is spreading in our institutions, laboratories and most importantly, in our classrooms, and that is doing irreparable harm to some of the world’s top scientists, educators, and thinkers.–
I fail to recognize, say, Behe and Dembski as top scientists or thinkers. And indeed, science is open to all, religious and irreligious alike, unlike ID which cannot be done by people who rely only upon empirical evidence.
What is more, the idea that anything is changing is utterly unsupported by any evidence. As far as can be determined, we’re operating according to the same rules utilized by Newton and by Einstein, such as Newton’s “Rules for Reasoning in Philosophy” (which is what he called his science):
“RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.
RULE III.
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal all such as universally agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede from the analogy of Nature, which uses to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the extension of bodies than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others also. That abundance of bodies are hard, we learn by experience; and because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable, we gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrable, and thence conclude impenetrability to be an universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with certain powers (which we call the vires inertiæ) of persevering in their motion, or in their rest we only infer from the like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vis inertiæ of the whole, result from the extension hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and vires inertiæ of the parts; and thence we conclude the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard and impenetrable, and moveable, and endowed with their proper vires inertiæ. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and separated from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet, had we the proof of but one experiment that any undivided particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, offered a division, we might by virtue of this rule conclude that the undivided as well as the divided particles may be divided and actually separated to infinity.
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth gravitate towards the earth, and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain, that the moon likewise, according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates towards the earth; that, on the other hand, our sea gravitates towards the moon; and all the planets mutually one towards another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in consequence of this rule, universally allow that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies that for their impenetrability; of which, among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to bodies: by their vis insita I mean nothing but their vis inertiæ. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth.
RULE IV.
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/rules.htm
Tell me how we deviate from those rules, then I might start listening to your complaints.
–Freedom is not conferred by the state: as our founders said, and as Martin Luther King repeated, freedom is God-given.–
I’ll take that as metaphorically true. As such, why would anyone wish to take away our freedom by imposing ID into education and science, when it cannot withstand the scrutiny of science?
–A huge part of this freedom is freedom of inquiry.–
Absolutely, and Galileo was persecuted for inquiry. IDists wish also to impose a “science” which cannot be engaged in by impassionate seekers of empirical knowledge.
–Freedom of inquiry is basic to human advancement. There would be no modern medicine–
Right, and modern medicine has been predicated in part in evolutionary theory, in order to interpret results from animal experiments, and to tweak medicines and trials for humans. IDists threaten modern medicine, particularly as it is increasingly reliant upon comparisons of our genome with the genomes of related organisms (and the only sensible interpretation is that undirected evolution is responsible for changes in genomes).
–no antibiotics–
Quite. Antibiotics work against bacteria and are relatively harmless to humans and related organisms. This fits in with the predictions of non-teleological evolution, while ID has no basis for any sort of predictions, not as formulated by present IDists (though they claim to predict function for junk DNA, while contradictorily claiming that vestigial organs fit in with ID–vestigial organs essentially are the result of a kind of junk DNA).
–no brain surgery, no Internet–
Right, brain surgery and the internet come from classical science which effectively adheres to causal mechanisms. Unlike ID.
–no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways–
Oh, so science has been good to us. Then why bring unevidenced charges against it, as you do?
–no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.–
Absolutely. Science has had great success, while ID tells us that we ought to resort to pre-scientific assumptions which have never proved their worth.
–This includes the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates.–
Completely allowed. “Naturalism” is only a convenience for theists, who wished to put their God beyond the realm of observation. Science itself cannot exclude God from possible inquiry, it’s just that nobody has ever found a way to observe God or God’s doings in the cosmos.
–This has always been basic to science. ALWAYS.–
OK, then what’s your complaint?
–Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.–
True for Galileo and Newton, not true of Einstein. Einstein’s “God” was at most “Deus sive Natura,” Spinoza’s conflation of nature and divinity which could never propose a “designer God” or any such epistemological horror.
–Operating under that hypothesis, they discovered the most important laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, and even economics.–
Good grief, you really don’t know anything about them, do you? Thermodynamics was developed by other people, especially by Lord Kelvin (another theist, btw). And none of us fault Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Lord Kelvin (though Kelvin’s theology interfered with certain of his claims), for they did exactly the kind of science that modern scientists do today. Indeed, anyone who reads Darwin may recognize how he is trying to bring biology into the same sort of scientific regime in which Newton operated, the cause-and-effect analysis of the data.
–Now, I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.–
You should be sorry to say it, because it isn’t true. IDists mean to suppress inquiry, but so far have been thwarted in their attempts.
–Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator.–
No evidence or argumentation is brought forth to back up this banal claim. Indeed, Nature wrote an editorial praising Francis Collins’ efforts to bridge the science/religion divide, which they suppose he is able to do precisely because he finds science to be compatible with God and Xianity (if hardly all forms of Xianity).
–Do you realize that some of the leading lights of “anti-intelligent design” would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him… EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?–
No, I didn’t know that, though it could be true. Even if it is true, it hardly backs up your charges against science as a whole.
–EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS… HE WOULD BE BANNED.–
What do you mean “banned”? I’m sure that all kinds of factors prevent scientists from working together, many much more trivial than religion. It hardly troubles me that some scientists would not like working with certain theists, nor that certain theists would not like working with certain atheists (PZ comes to mind as a possibility).
–In today’s world, at least in America, an Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo would probably not be allowed to receive grants to study or to publish his research.–
There is almost certainly no reason to think that today’s America differs substantially from the one that welcomed Einstein with open arms rather than sending him back to Nazi Germany. Einstein would be showered with grants and opportunities, were he alive today, and I’ll bet that even you know it.
Newton could run into trouble if he espoused alchemy, a pseudoscience like ID (though almost certainly more scientific than the latter, able to give rise to aspects of chemistry). That said, Newton could almost certainly be more open about his religious ideas than he was able to be in England in the 17th century.
And it’s laughable to see the religion-persecuted Galileo brought up by the pro-pseudoscience spokespeople as if he’d be troubled by the scientists of today. Galileo is substantially responsible for modern science, something that Heidegger points out with some disapproval (why don’t we try to force Heidegger’s perspective into the sciences along with ID? At least it’s not the result of religious dogma, no matter that it’s still tendentious nonsense).
–They cannot even mention the possibility that–as Newton or Galileo believed–these laws were created by God or a higher being.–
Of course they can, and some do. It behooves Stein to learn a little bit about science and how it is done.
–They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off.–
Unlikely, though I suppose it’s within the realm of possibilities (there are the prejudiced and the idiotic in science, just as anywhere).
–This can happen.–
Anything can happen. It remains for IDists to bring up evidence for any of their claims, for they haven’t produced sufficient evidence for their non-trivial charges and claims thus far.
–It has happened.–
I’d like to see the evidence. Not Sternberg, who appears to have shepherded junk science through the process meant to weed it out.
–EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed comes to theaters near you in February 2008. To learn more, check out my blog here often … and explore the rest of our site for new developments, or to volunteer to help spread the word.–
You have not made a compelling case for anyone to “learn” anything else from you. Just a bunch of claims made without evidence, claims that have been exhaustively answered on science blogs like Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb, while the ID blogs remain mostly impervious to open discussion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
August 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I’m still waiting for the “censored evidence” that could answer the post I made a few days back. Here it again is for all of those who are just waiting to provide the evidence of ID:
–Glen Davidson Says:
August 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the most telling reason why ID is not only useless but wrong, is that the evolutionary patterns among the eukaryotes are substantially different from those in the prokaryotes. Notably, we see the appearance much horizontal transfer among the asexual (but conjugating) bacteria and archaea, and almost solely vertical transfer among the sexual (it appears that all asexual eukaryotes had sexual progenitors) eukaryotes, regardless of what level of evolution is considered.
If the Grand Designer were in fact designing through evolution, why does it choose to produce the patterns expected from the differing mechanisms among eukaryotes and prokaryotes? Why virtually no horizontal transfers in the vertebrate lineage, why a difficult-to-sort out pattern of evolution in prokaryotes, due to their rampant promiscuity?
It looks as though known mechanisms might be responsible for the evolution of eukaryotes and the evolution of prokaryotes. It takes quite a designer to so carefully design evolution just as if it were the known and established mechanisms were operating over the course of earth’s history.
That’s what we’re “censoring,” of course, a “theory” that has utterly failed to explain anything at all, only claiming that the predictions of modern evolutionary theory “can fit” with the lack of predictions about their “designer”. Of course it can, because the IDists haven’t said anything substantial at all.
Why not simply resort to Last Thursdayism or Omphalos creationism? It’s the same reasoning, that all of the predictions of science are meaningless because an undefined and unconstrained designer could make it all look like it’s old, and that Darwinian mechanisms have operated in organisms through all time.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7–
Now come on, on Panda’s Thumb I asked Paul Nelson to provide the answer, and he simply disappeared. I asked here, and all I got was someone who asked me what I actually know about evolution, when that post mentions several things that I know about evolution (I’ve never run into an IDist who could answer my questions forthrightly, which is surely evidence of something). Stein claims that ID is being stifled, when all I can see is a bunch of IDists who can’t answer reasonable questions.
Somehow I expect that nothing has changed in the past few days.
Glen D
August 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
You mean the freedom of someone like Mark Felt to expose corruption…oh wait, I read your op-ed about how that’s not allowed.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels. It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Ben, science is about evidence, and coming to conclusions based on that evidence.
That is where ID fails. It’s not considered seriously in scientific circles because nobody has provided evidence supporting its ‘theory’.
Please, gather your evidence, and publish a paper in a scientific journal with the hypothesis, evidence, and predictions for peer review. That’s what science is about.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Nobody is suppressing anything. You can believe any stupid fairy tale you want; you just can’t call it science.
ID, and the rest of Xtian mythology, has simply been shown to not be true. It doesn’t belong in a science classroon, because it isn’t science. It doesn’t work. Science is a search for truth through the process of elimination, and ID and everything that goes along with it was eliminated long ago. Nobody knows what is true, but we DO know that ID is false.
But then, you folks and your imaginary friend are all about persecution complexes, aren’t you?
August 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Ben - you Rock!
Frog to Prince(time = instant) = Fairy Tale
Frog to Prince(time = 4 Million years) = Science
-
It is so sad to see so many people clinging to bad science in an effort to deny the existance of God.
Natural Selection does work - within a species. Breaders (designers?) have been doing that with dogs and roses for centuries. But no one ever changed a dog into a cat or a daisy into poisen ivy. And a drought never changed a finch into a pelican (a Darwin jab for the the uneducated).
Or maybe they’re a fan of Nebraska Man - oops - was that a pigs tooth?
What came first the DNA that tells the amino acids what order to assemble to make DNA, or the amino acids DNA is made from?
“The amino acids of course. They randomly came to gether to form a self replicating, self discribing chain holding instructions for assembling other chains discribing the information for building arms and hair and idiots just like a database (*another designed construct*”. Just like entropy says it would? Right.
Carl Sagan preached that in a universe with all of eternity to make things happen, then anything is possible - even life (you adorable goo man you).
Then of course we found the big bang. The universe has a begining and it wasn’t made to last.
Anyway - this is a blog not an essay.
It takes so much faith to believe in evolution when all of creation testifies to the wonder and majesty of our Creator.
Or maybe they have finally reproduced Miller and Urey’s acids and can build someone to talk to.
Or maybe Stevy G. can give us a ride on his spaceship to show us where he thinks DNA started.
They try so hard to fake the evidence to fit evolution and then accuse us of doing the same to make it fit creation.
God bless you and your movie Brad. I pray you inspire others to open their eyes and hearts, to be Berean and check everything for TRUTH!
August 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
My last comment didn’t get in, so I’ll try again…
Ok, so many mistakes, so little time…
#185, jb says:
“Basic premise of at least 3/4 of the comments here? “Shut up.” Most obviously would censor the film if they had that power, but since they don’t have that power they are content to simply engage in the basest of ad hominem attacks and thinly-veiled threats.”
Right! Obviously you’ve never seen the flash animation that Dembski had of Judge Jones, did you?
Or maybe the threats that he got?
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2006/03/threats-of-violence-against-dover.html (check the news article in the story, though it requires registration)
Or Dembski calling Jones a “putz” because he supposedly “copied” the ACLU’s opinion http://www.uncommondescent.com/courts/judge-jones-towering-intellectual-or-narcissistic-putz/ never mind that it’s actually common practice for judges to do that??
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/weekend_at_behe.html
(from the Pandasthumb article):
“Now, Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings. Both the school district and the plaintiffs filed proposed findings, and the judge went with the findings he found most convincing. Incidentally, the school district doesn’t seem to have ever objected to the plaintiffs’ filing their proposed findings.
The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case. In re Las Colinas, Inc., 426 F.2d 1005, 1008. (1st Cir. 1970) (“The practice of inviting counsel to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is well established as a valuable aid to decision making.”) As the Supreme Court put it in a slightly different context,
….”
(read on, and learn something)
Or how the ID people attacked Dr. Barbara Forrest?
http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
(from Forrest):
“Scheduled to testify the following week but delayed by Hurricane Rita, I used the extra time to prepare for my testimony and to stay current on ID activities by visiting DI’s website. On September 29, I noticed that DI had posted a transcript of an interview I had done— except that I hadn’t done it. The transcript was fake. Apparently meant (though not marked) as a parody, the organization whose self-described goal is “to support high quality scholarship . . . relevant to the question of evidence for intelligent design in nature” ridiculed me by, among other things, having fictitious radio host “Marvin Waldburger” refer to me as “Dr. Barking Forrest Ph.D.” [25] If DI thought this would unsettle me, they were ignoring the fact that I had just been through two killer hurricanes. I could only shake my head at their doing something so jaw-droppingly stupid. If they were hoping Judge Jones would see and be influenced by this silliness, it was just another sign of the disrespect for his intelligence and integrity that began before the trial and continues today (see below).”
(jb again):
“Not a one of ‘em has seen this film, but when PZ Myers says, “Jump!” the dogs dutifully jump. Amazing that he’d have his peanut gallery come here to prove - in writing! - the very premise of this film.”
Wrong. While some people are throwing insults, I’ve noticed that most of the posters here are actually trying to say just why ID is wrong. And sorry, nobody told me to do anything. We, at least, are not sheep.
Sure, we haven’t seen the film yet, but guess what? We’re replying to the stuff that Stein has posted, as well as in some cases the claims that ID has made repeatedly in the past.
Unless the film differs greatly from the ID party lines that we’ve all seen before, I think that we can make a pretty good guess as to the kinds of things the movie will have: Same old, same old.
(more jb):
“Neodarwinism is the tool of metaphysical materialism, used to evangelize scientism to other people’s children, protected by law and authoritarian orthodoxy from any alternative thinking or theorizing.”
(more conspiracy thinking: read some European history about the Dark Ages if you want to see who’s really been bad at that)…Good grief.
If you want “authoritarian orthodoxy”, may I suggest reading the Statments of Faith that Answers in Genesis the ICR have? Or even read the Wedge document.
Can you name any religious right figure who, at, or before the time of the Scopes Trial in the ’20s was saying that we should hear both sides of the story when it came to evoluton vs. creation??
Why is it only once that the ideas the religous right supports are refuted, THEN we hear them talking about stuff like “teaching the controversy”???
Bottom line: As the Dover trial and numberous other sites have shown, it’s the science that defeats ID.
Enough conspiracy theories, jb.
(jb again):
“Fortunately, it is fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science, and that’s what these die-hards are really afraid of. It’s why Dawkins and PZ and the gang have given up science for their ‘New Atheist Movement’, a purely philosophical/metaphysical battle to be fought in the sociopolitical arena. Which is where this film will debut.”
Right… “fast falling from favor in the actual practice of science”! That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?
If you people had any, that would have been a good time to show it…instead what do we get afterwards?
Yep, more conspiracy theories!
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/08/dembski_and_darwinian_fascists.php
August 29th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Only in America (where satan and all his cohorts got himself protected by the constitution) could you write this sorta bull. WHAZZAMATTA WID YOU PEOPLE ????? WHY DON’TCHA submit to THE PROPER GROWNUP CHURCH instead of mucking about with versions of bible and things you don’t understand ? They should NEVER have translated it out of the Latin and thrown it to you swine. May God rest your ignorant, repressive souls.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Marty said: “Can you explain why antibiotic-resistant bacteria are STILL just BACTERIA, and haven’t become gnats or mosquitoes or even algae?”
Because there are already gnats, mosquitoes, and algae. The evolutionary niches that would be filled by bacteria evolving have already been filled. It would be immediately out-competed by all the existing organisms who have had a lot longer to adapt to the environment.
You’re essentially asking why, in this day and age, does no one put an engine on a horse cart and make a horseless carriage.
It should be noted, though, that one type of bacteria has evolved to be able to digest nylon, which is a fairly recent invention.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
awaiting moderation ??? That’s called censorship in plain English …..
August 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Dimensio Says:
“Evidence exists in the fossil record and in the DNA patterns across extant species. Your ignorance of the evidence does not negate the existence of the evidence.”
Were you peaking when the Suburban and the Pinto were getting it on and then giving birth to the SUV.
Your mantra “why aren’t you pasting the evidence?” (yes -it’s a paraphrase - in this case more of a summation) is pathetic. You said there is evidence of evolution in the fossel record. I’m calling you on it. Show me. Just one transistional fossel. over 4 billion years, all the changes it must have taken to get from a single cell to you there must be loads and loads of transitional fossels right? But there aren’t.
My belief in my creator is not by faith. That he loves me and has saved me is what I have faith in.
You beleive in evolution, not because of evidence you have seen evidence but because others have told you there is evidence. That’s faith. You look at the pictures of the embrios and say this must be true. And when you are finally told it was a lie, you forgive the lie and and still insist the bad theory is right. And you insist on teaching that lie to my child.
Natural selection works. Give me 200 dogs and 40 years and I’ll have a bread with a head the size of a basketball and stand 6′ on all fours. But let them go wild and inside of 10 years they will look like the muts their parents were. But to bread the traits you have to have the traits to begin with.
I’m not waisting the space here to spoon it all to you. you can google as well as I. But until you actually look at the evidence instead of just setting it aside because it doesn’t fit your “faith” ~ how sad
And all the name calling in the world won’t make evolution true - or is that survival of the fittist?
August 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I am from a secular humanist background. Nonetheless I have now come to the conclusion (after 30 yrs) that neo-Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) is a hoax — with regard to the origin (construction/creation} of new species. Both natural selective destruction and randomization are destruction functions wrt living bio-information. Natural selection only weeds out (destroys/kills) the unfit. Randomization can only scramble(destroy) genetic information. While I was originally a Darwinist (of course) I am now convinced that Darwinian macroevolution is truly the biggest disaster/hoax in the history of science.
More information on Darwinism can be found at my ICON-RIDS blog.
http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/2006_10_16_archive.html
August 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Not all, but many of the comments above indicate much confusion about the nature of the film and how it was made. I would suggest that a lot of this confusion could be cleared up by listening to the two part interview with Walt Ruloff, the executive producer of the film. The podcasts can be found at the following links:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-27T14_35_24-07_00
and
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-29T10_52_26-07_00
To quote descriptions of the two podcasts:
In the first installment, Ruloff gives a brief overview of Expelled, explains how he came to spend over two years making the film, talks about intelligent design as a disruptive technology compared to dogmatic Darwinian evolution, and tells how the film will show that Darwinian evolution is a science stopper. Rather than get mired in the politics of the debate, Ruloff explains that Expelled gets to “where the rubber meets the road, where the science is being done.”
In the second installment, Ruloff explains how interviews were obtained with top Darwinists including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, and dispels claims that trickery and deception were used. He also provides an overview of the movie’s website, staff, and future projects.
I hope this helps some of you; a little more light and a little less heat would advance the discussion considerably.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
So, Ben wants intelligent design taught in the classroom.
Does he also favor L. Ron Hubbard’s creation story in the classroom?
The Buddhist creation myth? Hindu?
All of the above, including intelligent design, are faith-based beliefs.
If one belongs in the science classroom, they all do.
60% of Americans agree with Ben. He may make a lot of money with the movie.
But, he’s no rebel. He’s just pandering the the majority.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
If you need proof for your faith, it isn’t faith. If you need to believe in your science, it isn’t science.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
ToadPrince said: “Your mantra “why aren’t you pasting the evidence?” (yes -it’s a paraphrase - in this case more of a summation) is pathetic. You said there is evidence of evolution in the fossel record. I’m calling you on it. Show me. Just one transistional fossel.”
OK, here’s a bunch: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
The development of the whale and horse lines are some of the best examples. Here’s a nice picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica of the development of the horse:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art/print?id=47479&articleTypeId=0
August 29th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
William Brookfield said: “Nonetheless I have now come to the conclusion (after 30 yrs) that neo-Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) is a hoax — with regard to the origin (construction/creation} of new species.”
But we have *seen* speciation happen, both in the wild and in the lab.
“Both natural selective destruction and randomization are destruction functions wrt living bio-information.”
Why do you say that?
I am from a secular humanist background. Nonetheless I have now come to the conclusion (after 30 yrs) that neo-Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection) is a hoax — with regard to the origin (construction/creation} of new species.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
So where is Ben Stein? Has he answered any posts yet? You would think he’d be here defending his views, since he is the champion of freedom of inquiry.
I also have another question for him– if a school district is sued for trying to slip ID into the science classroom, will Ben Stein be there for them, and be willing to help in any way he can, including financially?
August 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Thanks, Mr. Stein,
This looks like my kind of movie.
Evolution is a religion that squeeked into the public classrooms through hoaxes and lies, and by unscientific methods. The Big Bang (cosmic evolution), the primordial soup (chemical evolution), and macroevolution have never been observed, tested, or verified. There is the Law of Biogenesis that states that life cannot naturally come from non-life, and that life can only come from its own kind. This is a law that was developed and scientifically proven by the great scientist, Louis Pasteur. The scientific law debunks macroevolution, all transitionals, and the primordial soup. If transitionals were true, we should be seeing millions of them running around our streets. We’d be trying to catch them, just to see who could own the coolest looking transitional for a pet. Instead, they’re MISSING!
The so-called geologic column has no transitional fossils throughout, even though there are fanatical atheists that will say that there are tons of them. Steven J. Gould (evolutionist) and others, in their moments of honesty, have admitted to the rarity and absence of transitionals. Polystrate fossilized trees, with no roots, have been found going through many layers of the “geologic layers”, equaling 100s of millions of years. How is it, that a dead tree can stay standing, while dirt falls around it for millions of years, without rotting away? This alone debunks the geologic column from being evidence that favors evolution. Also, with the millions of closed clams, and fossilized soft bodied creatures, and fish in the process of eating other fish, even on top of mountains, only proves that these creatures were buried suddenly and quickly by a worldwide flood.
The evolutionists have yet to explain the Cambrian Explosion, which debunks evolution, which shows the sudden appearance of advanced organisms.
For evolutionists, a single cell organism was the first lifeform on Earth, which lived in the already unscientifically provened primordial soup. But yet, we are suppose to believe that the single cell just happened by accident, by mindless, purposeless, and random chance, even though it is more complex than any home computer. This proves there was a Designer.
It is time to dump the evolution religion, which obviously takes a lot of blind faith to believe!
August 30th, 2007 at 12:31 am
BobRyan Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 11:25 am
From a previous post on this blog –
“For further information, use your God-given ability of thinking critically to consult these sites with an open mind (unless you desire to remain willingly ignorant):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there.”
The irony of BobRyan’s post is something to behold.
For Bob, and the other creationists on this message board who have recommended ‘Answers in Genesis’ as a scientifically open minded organisation, just take a look at their STATEMENT OF FAITH.
Anyone wishing to join the ‘Answers In Genesis’ organisation must sign it otherwise they will not be employed.
Posted below is an excerpt from this ‘Statement of Faith’
The whole thing can be found here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
“(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe . . .
(D) GENERAL
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.
NO APPARENT, PERCEIVED OR CLAIMED EVIDENCE IN ANY FIELD, INCLUDING HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY, CAN BE VALID IF IT CONTRADICTS THE SCRIPTURAL RECORD.” (Emphasis mine)
In other words, ‘Answers in Genesis’ state on their website that there is absolutely no evidence, which could be presented to them, which they would accept as falsifying their pre-conceived notions about cosmology, geology, biology, anthropology, chemistry, or any other scientific discipline which contradicts their narrow fundamentalist world view.
This is not science. It is merely religious fanaticism at its most pernicious!
What secular university anywhere would compel their staff to sign anything like this before agreeing to employ them?
Then the creationist nutters have the audacity to accuse the secular scientific establishment of being closed-minded! WTF?
BobRyan has the audacity to tell us to read AIG’s materials with an open mind, and also comments that it’s the best that the I.D. nutters have to offer.
How’s that for irony?
August 30th, 2007 at 1:01 am
“I’ve visited plenty of forums, and always see the same pattern, as soon as anyone brings up the subject of creation, Darwinism evolutionists suddenly jump in, saying what liars creationists are, they have no science behind their thought and how everyone HAS to believe particles-to-people evolution.”
Your claims might be more credible if you did not post such obvious lies such as the above, and if you did not dishonestly equate acceptance of evolution with atheism.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:12 am
” Evolution is a THEORY as is creation.”
Your statement suggests that you do not understand scientific terminology.
In science, a “theory” is a set of statements that organize a set of collected observed mechanisms into a comprehensive framework to describe a given phenomenon. In the case of evolution, it uses the observations of variance in offspring and relative reproductive success combined with observations of the fossil record and — most recently — patterns seen in DNA across species as a means of explaining extant biodiversity.
In order for an explanation to attain the status of “theory”, it must first be sufficiently tested (by fulfilled prediction) so as to gain a high degree of confidence amongst scientists within the relevant field. That evolution is a “theory” speaks highly of the confidence held in it by scientists.
“Creation”, on the other hand, is not only not a theory, it is not even science. It invokes supernatural agents, in violation of the scientific method. Additionally it invokes mechanisms that are not observed (unless someone can reference an observed “creation” event).
If you do not understand that evolution being “theory” actually speaks well of its established confidence value or that “creation” is not a theory at all, then you have not done sufficient research to understand even the bost fundamental aspects of the subject of science.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“Show me. Just one transistional fossel. ”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
But, of course, you’ll ignore it. Creationists never do any actual research.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Evolution is WRONG!! The sun orbits the EARTH, which is FLAT!!
We need to go back to the good old days when the church was the government and there were no stupid scientists telling our kids to believe their dumb ideas. Why is it so hard to understand??
August 30th, 2007 at 8:29 am
I love the trailer. Now you must endure the hate campaign of the Darwin Party. It takes a lot of courage, intellect, and stamina to expose the hoax of Darwinism. Ben, you have have got bags of these.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I’m a minister in an evangelical church and am interested in seeing this film, yet, I also cringe because just by reading the comments above, I wonder what good it will do.
My presupposition is that I believe the Bible by faith, not by sight. That dosen’t mean science is unimportant or irrelevant. I happen to be a huge fan of Stephen Hawking and even if evolution is proven, that will not shake my faith, it will only give me a better understanding of God, like my limited studies in science have done.
I don’t believe that someone who is not a Christian will believe in Christ because the theory of evolution is disproved. Creation can not be empirically proved. There are signs and many creationist scientists have pointed them out, but belief comes through the work of God in someone’s life, through faith.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Ben,
It is about time someone has stood up for the truth. Don’t mind the nay-sayers because you are out there for something more. Just let them cling to their Mike “more lies” Moore films. All will be revealed in the end and you are helping to save the ones that aren’t blinded to the lies that have been extrapulated from Darwin’s observations. Some may be enlightened but the others are left in the dark.
Keep fighting the good fight- Mr. Ben.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:36 am
appears you’ve hit a nerve!
August 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I thought I had published several papers, not one of which can ever be reconciled with the biggest hoax in the history of science. Who, beside myself, posting on this thread has ever published a word in a refereed journal dealing with the ONLY issue which has ever been at stake - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution?
Don’t be shy - let’s hear from you. Of course you realise you will have to divulge your identity. After all that is what real scientists do, under their real names. They publish papers in refereed journals.
I predict there will not be a single response from the denizens of this blog, just as there has been none from those who frequent Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Sandwalk, etc, etc, etc. The internet is specifically designed for insecure blowhards who can’t cut the mustard in the real world! That includes P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins.
It is getting easy to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 30th, 2007 at 10:22 am
If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Though I do think that the strongest aspects of ID theory lie not in it’s possible theological interpretations (though I do appreciate a model of Scientific inquiry which is less philosophically biased towards naturalistic materialism), I am excited about seeing this film. I hope we steer clear of making this look like a Creationism vs. Darwinism debate, which is isn’t - it’s two models of Evolutionary theory, one of which is philosophically entrenched, and one of which questions the establishment to a degree that makes those in power very nervous. This isn’t a religious issue - it’s really about “Free-Thought”. Thanks, Ben, for taking a risk and pursuing this. I’ll be front and center in the theater the day it is released.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Something I noticed. There are two distinct camps when it comes to evolution and it’s followers. There are those who view it strictly as science and those who view it as a religion. We have many atheist biologist making claims that God is imaginery, but when you question origin of life issues, they say (along with Darwin himself) that that has nothing to do with evolution. If science was trully their main objective (Dawkins for example), then metaphysical possibilities would not lead to such outrage.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I would also like to say…
“Thanks, Ben (and company), for taking a risk and pursuing this.”
August 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Wow, Ben was right. Look at the swarming of ID haters. Keep doin your thing Ben.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
“Silence is golden.”
Thomas Carlyle
There is no risk incurred when exposing the biggest hoax in the history of science.
And yes, I most certainly do love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Namgorf:
I refer to people claiming evolution is impossible because it would violate the 2nd Law.
That claim is clearly and unequivocally false for the simple reason I stated: the Earth is NOT a closed energy system. At all. In any way, shape, or form.
The presence of the sun is the most glaringly (sorry for the pun) obvious exception. There are many.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Ben, Over 850 blog comments in just over one week, all in response to little ‘ole you wanting to talk about intelligent design?
Something tells me this is going to be a fun ride…
August 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
John A. Davison: I have published almost 100 articles in peer reviewed science journals and books, so you are not alone. The common claim that Darwin Skeptics do not publish is simply wrong. Of course, to do so, as I am sure you know, we must stay in the closet. Has your doubts about Darwinism caused you any professional problems? Is, in your judgment, the theme of this film valid?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on…
August 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on. But you tell me…
August 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on. TTFN
August 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on. Questions?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
To ngong who said:
“#741…Just for once, would you IDers and creationists provide citations for the purported scientists who claim that an amoeba self-assembled?
You can’t…it’s just a straw man. Why don’t you educate yourself as to what biochemists are really saying before you type your fatuous screeds?”
Here is a link to the figures I have given in a previous post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Frederick_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
As for the claim of my use of a “straw man” argument, this is a baseless accusation and is irrelevant to the point I was making. A straw man is a misrepresentation of your actual position. Something such as “You believe we evolved from monkeys, and we still see monkeys around, so you’re wrong,” is a good example of a straw man argument. My argument is not only relevant to what you believe, but in fact, the whole of what you believe (big bang, evolution, etc.) is itself contingent on your position with respect to this valid argument. If you truly believe that chance was the acting agent responsible for the astronomical complexity we see weaved into the fabric of the entire universe, then this speaks volumes about your ability (or lack thereof) to use logical reasoning to interpret the evidence objectively. One would think that if your beliefs regarding the beginnings of life are so much more credible, then you wouldn’t mind enlightening us as to what exactly they are. Obviously, your contention that you simply “don’t know” would reveal the fatal flaw in your hypocritical stance: that everything you claim as evidence for your theory is based on a conglomeration of flawed logic and misguided assumptions. Why don’t you educate yourself on what you really believe and actually be able to defend it from critical analysis and contradictory evidences?
To Joel Pelletier:
You obviously haven’t read any of my posts, so let me point you in the right direction:
#285, 555, 673 & 741
If you decide to simply ignore the valid points I have posited in each of these posts, you can go ahead and join the “willingly ignorant” crowd.
To Craig who said:
“BobRyan said: “http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp best creationism site out there
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436 dating discrepancy
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=438 dating discrepancy”
The problem with Answers In Genesis and the ICR is that they both start out with the premise that the Bible is inerrant. What usually ends up happening is, since in their views their premise is incontrovertible, they look for evidence that supports their point and discard all that which doesn’t fit.
In other words, they start with the answer they want and then try to support it. This is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to be doing in science, where you gather evidence and base your answer on what you find.
I haven’t looked at any of the other creationist sites in your list, so I can’t speak for them.”
Actually Craig, I listed those sites in my first post, not BobRyan. What you fail to realize, is that the very same thing you accuse these creationist organizations of, you yourself are guilty of. You start off with the premise that the Bible is not a true account of history, despite all the archeological evidence supporting it. The reason you more than likely deny its authenticity, is that you do not accept the idea of a creator (i.e. an intelligent designer) being the author of existence. This is an a priori assumption and is not based on what the evidence clearly implies. To know this would also suggest that you are both omniscient and omnipresent; both of which are clearly characteristics of God.
Because you set these presuppositions on a pedestal that you present as incontrovertible by incorrectly labeling them as “science,” you only look for evidence that supports your point, and discard all that does not fit. This is why you simply ignore all the points I’ve made in my previous posts without contention. I think that if you look closely here Craig, you will see the hypocrisy of your argument. I’m sure that everyone else can see them as well (some may need to open their eyes and take their fingers out of their ears.)
I would suggest reading into all of the creationist sites I have listed, as it may clear some things up for you. Good luck!
To CRasch who said:
“To all ID’ist.
If you believe in a designer? What empirical evidence do you have of a designer.
What is classified as designed and not designed? Why?
We have frames of reference for what is created by man.
What frames of reference for what is created this so called designer.
Who or What is this designer?
What empirical observations using laws and theories in Astrobiology, Astrochemistry, Astrodynamics, Astrometry, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmochemistry, Extragalactic astronomy, Galactic astronomy, Scientific Cosmology, Planetary geology, Planetary science, Solar astronomy, Stellar astronomy, Biogeography, Climatology, Coastal geography, Geodesy, Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, Geostatistics, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Oceanography, Paleoclimatology, Paleontology, Petrology, Limnology, Seismology, Soil science, Topography, Volcanology, Environmental science, Environmental chemistry, Environmental geology, Environmental soil science, Anatomy, Biochemistry, Bioinformatics, Biology, Biophysics, Biotechnology, Botany, Cell biology, Cladistics, Cytology, Developmental biology, Ecology, Embryology, Entomology, Epidemiology, Ethology, Evolution (Evolutionary biology), Evolutionary developmental biology, Freshwater Biology, Genetics (Population genetics, Genomics, Proteomics), Histology, Immunology, Marine biology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Morphology, Neuroscience, Ontogeny, Phycology (Algology), Phylogeny, Physical anthropology, Physical therapy, Physiology, Population dynamics, Structural biology, Taxonomy, Toxicology, Virology, Zoology, Analytical chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational chemistry, Electrochemistry, Inorganic chemistry, Materials science, Organic chemistry, Polymer chemistry, Physical chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Spectroscopy, Stereochemistry, Thermochemistry, Acoustics, Agrophysics, Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics, Biophysics, Computational physics, Condensed matter physics, Cryogenics, Dynamics, Fluid dynamics, Geophysics, Materials physics, Mathematical physics, Mechanics, Nuclear physics, Optics, Particle physics, Plasma physics, Polymer physics, or Thermodynamics that so called designer specifically uses? Please provide specific examples or scientific studies that have been peered reviewed.”
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp
The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.
Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.
Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…
And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there.
Ken Silber said:
“Ben, something can’t be suppressed if it doesn’t exist. IDers have had years to demonstrate their science in laboratory or field work, as opposed to political propaganda, and they have nothing to show for it.
Unless this film offers a detailed and empirical presentation on such matters as how/when/why the design occurred, it’s not science but just more blather.
As for Newton et al, what did their science have to do with their religious beliefs? The laws of motion work the same whether you believe in God or not.”
Until you can demonstrate in the laboratory how life spontaneously created itself, we will assume that you are taking this on faith. If this is indeed the case, then two things become increasingly clear: 1) you believe in a cosmic accident and have no evidence to support it, and at the same time you are hypocritically chastising us for believing that it required a creator. 2) You do not realize that the universe is so utterly complex that a creator is necessary (this is based on logic, common sense, and mathematical probability), and therefore your initial assumption is dead wrong.
If evolution is based on the assumption of abiogenesis, then evolution is wrong (this is logical). Even given the benefit of the doubt that you “just don’t know,” this is still a very critical assumption that is based not just on a lack of evidence, but in light of evidence that contradicts the possibility of it. If evolution is indecisive, and vaguely allows for a designer of some kind, then there is no logical reason to discount the one described in a written account of history that is supported archeologically on many levels (i.e. the Bible). It would stand to reason then, if a designer was necessary, that if the written account of history He provided is true, then evolution cannot be, or at the very least, is not necessary. If one were to look at the evidence based on this presupposition, as opposed to the even harder to believe abiogenesis, then one might more clearly see the trail of assumptions that evolution drags behind it and therefore recognize its absurdity.
Once again, I will refer you to my post #741, and hopefully you will see the ridiculous amount of faith it takes to assume abiogenesis.
To Dimensio:
Dimensio: the man of quick quips and little info, but many insults. Please read my posts for all the answers to your questions. I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding or an outright naivety of what it is exactly that your beliefs presuppose. Once you can prove abiogenesis in a lab, then we will prove God in a lab. Because the evidence favors a creator, and the fact that you want to indoctrinate people en masse with a colossal daisy-chain of half-truths and whole lies–to which you give the fallacious façade of truth by utilizing the bait’n’switch method via natural selection–the onus is on you to present evidence that spontaneous generation of life ever happened.
Also, the point about ambiguous morality, to which you hurtfully cried “liar,” is a spot-on argument about the consequences of an atheistic worldview. Common sense would dictate that if there was no god (i.e. a higher authority) to set the rules (and there also define morality), then one’s own perception of what is to be considered right and wrong cannot be challenged with any true justification. People like Hitler, Dahmer, Stalin, and Manson probably thought they were in the right in their actions based on what they themselves defined as morally acceptable. If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival. Certainly the ideas of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, rape, assault, torture, murder, theft, and cannibalism cannot be strictly defined as right or wrong if there is not an authority outside and above us that determines this and sets the precedence. Otherwise, morality is arbitrary, and the determining factor for what is right and wrong is one’s own rational; which we quite obviously cannot count on. Any ?s?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
“I love the trailer. Now you must endure the hate campaign of the Darwin Party. It takes a lot of courage, intellect, and stamina to expose the hoax of Darwinism.”
You forgot “intellectual dishonesty”. It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to claim that “Darwinism” is a “hoax”.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“If evolution were true, mothers would have three arms.”
Why?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Just let them cling to their Mike “more lies” Moore films.”
It’s a special kind of liar who equivocates acceptance of the theory of evolution with being a fan of Michael Moore. Congratulations on demonstrating that you are truly exceptional in your utterly shameless dishonesty.
August 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Wiggy #871…
I believe your concept of history with the church being the government and flat earth vs science is seriously flawed if you care evaluate real history.
Just go to Wikipedia.org (or any encyclopedia) and search on “Flat Earth” and you’ll find your flat earth and church government connection basically wrong.
If you’re still in Wikipedia also search on “Geocentric model” and you’ll see that the concept of the earth being the center of the solar system was a Greek classical idea, not a Biblical concept. Quote, “It was embraced by both Aristotle and Ptolemy, and most Greek philosophers assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and naked eye planets circle the Earth”.
NOW GET THIS WIGGY— THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE TIME OF GALILLEO WAS DEFENDING BIG SCIENCE. GALILLEO was the rebel against BIG SCIENCE who was allied with the Catholic church.
The Catholic church also burned people at the stake who printed the Bible. It was religion and BIG SCIENCE of the day that was bad.
Isaiah 40:22 in the Bible speaks of the earth being circular.
Hopefully you’ll do some research to save yourself from revealing your ignorance further.
August 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Whether it’s BIG CHURCH or BIG SCIENCE, power and money hunger men gravitate towards power and do everything possible to maintain the status quo.
Funny that evolutionists are now in the seat of power and their corruption of power stinks. It’s a good time for a rebel to once again hit the big guys with the truth.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I don’t think the point of this film (from what I have seen) is to shove the idea of God down people’s throats, it’s that tha academic establishment is very biased and anti-God and thus any academic who even mentions God is disliked. I can find this very believable as anyone who ahs spent time around academia knows it is primarily left-wing, which is usually very anti-God.
My mother works in education and even told me the school told them it is absolutely forbidden to mention the word “God” at all.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
What I find most interesting about the reactions here is that I can’t see any place in Mr. Stein’s posting that indicates he BELIEVES in Intelligent Design, just that he believes researchers should be allowed to pursue the evidence, regardless of where it points, without fear of persecution.
But he’s certainly got some evolutionists on the defensive, doesn’t he? Most of the postings here go a long way to prove his point…. And why the issue needs to be exposed.
Way to go, Mr. Stein. I look forward to seeing the movie.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
The message in this movie to my understanding is of how science technology cannot advance because of academic suppression, meaning, if certain scientific data goes in a radically new direction that doesn’t meet the criteria of Darwinism evolution, it basically gets shelved.
So, in return, there is a need for academic freedom, in the sense that freedom should be allowed to be able to pursue research despite what the scientific data represents. Even if that data may prove Darwinism evolution to be false.
Scientists, whether, evolutionist, creationists or IDists, should be able to collaborate, respecting each others ideas and beliefs and let science move on. But of course, this is very difficult, because one, Darwinism is being the science stopper, and not allowing other data to be considered, and secondly, the other data being considered may lead people to question Darwinism evolution.
All in all, the science world needs to go where science is being done, collaborate and advance the technology of science instead of suppressing it further by not allowing new research to be pursued.
I think if scientific data outside of Darwinism thinking can lead to more information that furthers research, it should be allowed. But, I do understand, that if this were to happen, Darwinism thinking could easily be highly questioned as I said.
And that it may also open doors where a lot of Darwinism evolution may not be fact, is not scientifically supported and therefore it should not be taught. And, that people may actually start believing instead of ridiculing God, and logically come to the conclusion that he is the creator who made heaven and the earth and all who occupy it.
In my very humble opinion, I do believe that this new scientific data could very well flush Darwinism evolution down the toilet, because it will be exposed with the many flaws that do not support it.
~M
August 30th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Dimensio Says:
August 30th, 2007 at 1:21 am
“Show me. Just one transistional fossel. ”
For transitional tetrapods go here,
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
and here,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/fig_tab/440747a_F1.html
For Whale transitionals, go here.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/
For fossil hominids, go here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
and here,
http://www.plyojump.com/courses/biology/week05.html
For a whole heap of others, including reptile to mammal transitonals, and horse transitionals, go here.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p15.htm
What’s wrong with you lazy creationists? Why can’t you do your own research? These things are easy to find, if you only took a LITTLE bit of time to look.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Why is it when somone pipes up about ID, everyone against them feels they have to make it known that they are far too smart to beleive in such a stupid theory. If you really think Ben Stein is full of shit, then why even post? Just shake your head and don’t go see the movie. With the mass amounts of Evolutionary movies and documentaries and articles, why can’t we have at least one documentary on the opposite side of the argument.
Also, this blog is so full of hatefull responses I only had to read the first few to get the idea of what people think. So why did hundreds of more people post their objections too, when they all say the same things? The ridiculous objections and arguments i have read so far have all been answered, just pick up a book (Theres lots of ID Books on the market). Or go listen to the “ID The Future” podcast. If you really want to find an answer to your objections, go look for it. Don’t demand somone to give it to you and sit there all smug when they don’t respond to the 900 posts that all say the same stupid thing. This is why the movie is important. The age of evolution has created a world of non-thinking robots swallowing any and all lies provided to them regarding evolution, while remaining blind to the fact that there is a very real and thriving scientific ID movement that isn’t being reported upon or published because it’s simply not popular. You’re all brainwashed.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Thanks Ide for replying back, I’ll try to answer as many questions or at least point you to links or information that will get you an answer which may include I don’t know.
“It seems to me that endorses my point. Darwinian mechanisms can’t/shouldn’t be invoked to extrapolate to an explanation for the first life, whatever that might have been.”
Glad you see it the same way I do? The theory of common descent, though natural selection says we all life comes from a common ancestor. We do not have enough evidence to say with any real confidence where or how this form of abiogenesis happen. We do have evidence it is possible though certain conditions which evidence has shown the certain environments of the earth increased the possibility of creating the basic building block of life.
“But, Crasch, as I see it , that has little to do with the central issue raised in Expelled. The evolutionist axe has fallen on highly qualified scientists just for what the BELIEVE, not what they TEACH.”
Actually it is exactly why. They push creationism or Intelligent design as an acceptable form of truth in the scientific context and want to push this into the class room. See my post above on “Science, religion, truth, and lies: a comparison of standards. Faith and Truth, by Louann Miller”
Why do you think there are court cases on this issue. Not because of their faith, but because they want to teach it in the classroom as acceptable form of science.
I have never seen anybody fired or let go because of their faith when it didn’t interfere with their work. Has there been a court case where someone was fired because of their faith as a teacher? No, its all because of performance or due to teaching religion because it is unacceptable in our secular society.
“Now we may be getting to the heart of the issue. Ken Miller’s views remain a bit of a mystery to me. But passing to Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris who I feel both believe in the Christian understanding of God as Creator. They appear opposed to ID as they understand it. For reasons not clear to me it is the suggestion that the fingerprints of the Creator can be found in His work that bothers them. Hence no one should teach methods for finding those fingerprints or assert that evidence at hand is in fact supports inference of intelligent intervention in the causal flow of events. But Collins is at least clear that he sees no evidence supporting claims that an explanation for first life is on the horizon.” Not when the evidence is not evidence at all.
“As to my views, full disclosure: I’m an evangelical Christian, even, gasp, a Southern Baptist! My private heresy is to see both Darwinian interpretations and those of Intelligent Design advocates as conclusions based on available evidence. At the frontiers of knowledge scientists of both persuasions use identical methods . Someone has termed the process “Inference to the best explanation.” Darwinian jihadists seem to want to rule out of consideration, a priori, certain ideas they don’t like. That could be a big mistake if one of those ideas held the key to understanding don’t you think?”
Actually Creationism and Intelligent Design fails the scientific method. This is why it is not acceptable in science.
Watch this video for a better explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghnqh3Pqpg
“Both sides are guilty of making grander claims than they can support at times. But it is my reading of the gross trends of scientific understanding that ever since general relativity was shown to be incompatible with a steady state universe the ground has been slowly but steadily eroding under support for Darwinian evolution much beyond the diffuse boundary between micro and macro evolution.”
This is where ignorance comes to play. There is no difference in the scientific context between micro or macro evolution. These terms were originally created by creationist to try to make Creationism more valid when it really does nothing of the sort. “If Evolution was proven false we must use Intelligent Design or Creationism.” is a logical fallacy. It assumes only 2 possibilities when there are infinite other possibilities. There are no grander claims that evolution makes that can’t be backed up by empirical evidence. With in it’s naturalistic frame work, It is the most likely possibility of the development of life on this planet.
If you want to prove something scientific, you have to follow the rules set by the scientific method.
We observe, we hypothesize using the evidence we have, we make a prediction, we test these prediction (many times, hundreds or even over thousands of times directly and indirectly), and we share our results (even when it’s results we didn’t expect or wanted).
Has anyone observe this designer in Intelligent Design creating anything? Have we observed his methods? Have we observed the process itself. Have we observe a creator?
I know as an Evangelical Christian, you believe the designer is God!. (Even I as a Deist)
Have you observe God creating anything? Have you observed his methods? Have you observe God’s process itself? Can you use the 5 senses or use technology to sense God?
We have observe Evolution in nature and the lab. We have seen evolution’s mechanisms and they are repeatable in nature and in the lab. We have observe the process of evolution though nature and in the lab (But no all of it. We do not have a way to observe all of it, because we do not have a way to observe all life that has existed on this planet. This is why its theory). We can see evolution just by looking at a parent and his/her son/daughter.
I can go farther using the scientific method if you want in explaining why Intelligent Design isn’t science. But one mistake that I do want to note is that evolution is a process, not a person, or place, or animal. It the concept of change by reproduction. That is a undeniable fact.
“Finally, Crasch, let me say your suggestion to teach ID as history, rather than science, interests me. But it’s not clear to me how you would propose doing that. Nor is it clear how you view SETI, forensic science, or cultural anthropology being taught or practiced if ID is excluded from the arsenal of scientific investigation.”
SETI is limited at this time in finding intelligent life using technology known to us. Frame of reference is technology man has created.
Again Forensic science is base on a frame of reference measuring what information about the item in question is. Forensic recreates what happens. What it recreates is also repeatable.
ID is not new. The Scientific method derived from the great Greek philosophers who also the first to be recored of the idea of Intelligent Design. studying the history of science and the scientific method will also help us understand why we do not use or make hypothesis like Intelligent design as modern science.
August 30th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Oh Dear
I am going to be in trouble, I am related to your sound guy - I am married to his brother!
Have any of you read “Origin of Species’ (required reading for my Geogreaphy degree). Have you really (seriously, scientifically, not sensationally, publicitu driven) looked at the ideas of evolution,
I am a Christian. An Evangelical, Bible Believing Christian (from the UK - this might make a diference - I know the US is a diferent environment which us Europeans just dont understand cos we are -what is it - oh yes - MORE RATIONAL!!!!!). In fact, I am currently a Bible College student!
I believe in evolution (as a lot of UK Christians do) Isnt it far more amazing that God created a living, breathing, evolving, changing, growing system than some sort of static freak thing, ot something that he had to be involved with at the molecular level (though of course he could be if he wanted to). Plus I have read Dawkins, and Darwin, and many in between, and I am pretty much convinced. If you think this theory will fly outside the US, you are clearly as deluded as the ‘God Delusion’ (and yes, I think that is deluded too!!!!)
August 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Two years ago, the Kansas State Board of Education conducted 4 days of hearings in Topeka, KS on the subject of evolution and intelligent design.
ALL 23 I.D. witnesses showed up and testified.
NOT ONE pro-evolutionist scientists showed up. ALL scientists boycotted the hearings. The dictionary defines “boycott” as a method of intimidation.
Cameras from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and at least 40 other cameras were there recording this historical event. This was the BIG CHANCE for the pro-evolution scientists to show the world their OVERWELMING EVIDENCE that supports the theory of evolution.
They boycotted the hearings (by intimidation) because they had an empty hand. They had nothing. No evidence, nothing. They only thing they had was “hot air”, and hot air doesn’t cut it when put under the scrutiny of the eyes of the world.
That’s all I’ve heard in this blog from the pro-evolutionist . . . rhetoric, hot air, etc.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
878…In science, creativity and free thought is great, but they must be constrained by evidence.
As you move from the general public, to science bloggers, to real scientists, to biochemists and biologists, to really eminent biochemists and biologists, you see a decline in belief in ID and creationism. It’s simply a question of having the facts, as opposed to trite arguments (e.g. it’s impossible to create new information in DNA) at hand.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
And no wonder that the Big Science storm troopers are going crazy already, just read on:
Ben Stein, the lovable, monotone teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and The Wonder Years is on a journey to answer one of the biggest questions ever asked: Were we designed or are we simply the end result of an ancient
mud puddle struck by lightning? Stein, who is also a lawyer, an economist, a former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he finds on his journey. He discovers an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. But even worse, along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologist,astronomers,
chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural
selection.
“Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,” says Stein.
“Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science.
It’s anti-the whole concept of learning.”
Expelled uncovers that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature, challenging the idea that life is
a result of random chance. For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double PhD biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Not long after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution
where Sternberg was a research fellow began a coordinated smear and intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist expelled from his position. This attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.
On his journey, Stein meets other scientists such as astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of his extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. There are others, such as Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing
problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.
The list goes on and on.
Unlike some other documentary films, Expelled doesn’t just talk to people representing one side of the story. The film confronts scientists such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, influential biologist
and atheist blogger PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. The creators of Expelled crossed the globe over a two-year period, interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers
and public leaders. The result is a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.
“The incredible thing about Expelled is that we don’t resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the ’shock effect,’ something that has become common in documentary film these days,”
said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and co-Executive Producer.
“People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission
because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth.”
The extensive grass roots campaign for Expelled, spearheaded by Motive Entertainment president, Paul Lauer, will include nationwide screenings and
endorsements with key leaders, promotional materials, a promotional resource DVD, publicity, radio promotions and Internet. In addition, a pre-launch campaign will include unprecedented partnerships and a widespread campaign together with educators, youth, scientists, families and the media nationwide.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Dont like ‘awaiting moderation’ !
Are you subscribing to censorship? Dont make me fall out with my BIL!
August 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
And, finally, where can we se credits on this website? Are you afraid enough of comment that you wont list your ‘cast of thousands’, or your tech staff?
August 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
My original post has vanished? Didnt you like it?
August 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Mr. Stein,
I don’t know if you even have the time to read all the way down to my post, but I’ll be praying for you. I’ll be praying for you to have strength and protection. The Secular Humanists who force their religion totalitarian style on America by its scientific elite, media elite, and massive dictatorial school system will fight you every step of the way. They will hate you so much it is scary to think of. And hundred of thousands of their “followers”, well trained to be poorly educated, will attack you as well. The posts above are proof of that. “Be strong and full of good courage.” If your movie is truly working toward the goal of exposing the truth about persecution of free thought, then God Himself will be you. God bless you in your endeavor.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
90% of the attacks on Ben have just proven his point…you are ridiculed/mocked/scorned if you don’t just accept the fairytale of evolution….
What really matters is what is truth…we do not determine what truth is, truth is what it is, we just discover it…here is some truth I know most of you will hate…It is appointed unto a man once to die and after this the judgment….come up w/ all the theories you want…the truth is, you won’t escape death….one day you will die…it’s the ultimate statistic, 10 out of 10 do it, and on the day of your death, you will stand before the Creator you denied, in judgment….how will you do? Ever lied before, stolen, looked w/ lust, or used the name of God in vain….you’d be a liar, thief, adulterer of the heart and a blasphemer… listen to your conscience (which didn’t evolve, God gave it to you) you know you’d be guilty and deserve hell, if that doesn’t concern you, can quit reading now…but if it does, call out to God to grant you ‘godly sorrow’ which will work ‘godly repentance’ and place your faith and trust in the one who came to redeem you…Jesus Christ…Read the Bible and do what it says….. Christ came to redeem us from a debt we can’t pay…repent today and trust in Him….
BTW…You’d think after all these ‘millions of years of evolution’ man would have evolved a way to escape death….
August 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
John A. Davison said: “I thought I had published several papers, not one of which can ever be reconciled with the biggest hoax in the history of science. Who, beside myself, posting on this thread has ever published a word in a refereed journal dealing with the ONLY issue which has ever been at stake - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution?”
Which journal were you published in? I’d like to look it up in the library.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Darwin’s Myth said: “The Big Bang (cosmic evolution), the primordial soup (chemical evolution), and macroevolution have never been observed, tested, or verified.”
At least two of these (Big Bang and macroevolution) have been tested. And the Miller-Urey experiment was at least a tentative step in testing whether amino acids can form spontaneously (they can).
“There is the Law of Biogenesis that states that life cannot naturally come from non-life, and that life can only come from its own kind.”
I’m not aware of such a law. Also, what is the definition of a “kind”? Is it a species?
“This is a law that was developed and scientifically proven by the great scientist, Louis Pasteur. The scientific law debunks macroevolution, all transitionals, and the primordial soup.”
Louis Pasteur died over a hundred years ago. Science has moved on since then.
“If transitionals were true, we should be seeing millions of them running around our streets.”
Well, in a way we do, since *every* species is transitional.
However, if you’re looking for something with the front half of a
lizard and the back half of a mammal, you won’t find any, and you would
never expect to because evolution doesn’t work that way.
“The so-called geologic column has no transitional fossils throughout, even though there are fanatical atheists that will say that there are tons of them.”
Not only that, there are even Christians who will say there are tons of them!
Links to many examples have been posted throughout the messages here.
“Polystrate fossilized trees, with no roots, have been found going through many layers of the “geologic layers”, equaling 100s of millions of years. How is it, that a dead tree can stay standing, while dirt falls around it for millions of years, without rotting away?”
In short, it doesn’t have to stay standing for long. Layers can be deposited very rapidly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
“Also, with the millions of closed clams, and fossilized soft bodied creatures, and fish in the process of eating other fish, even on top of mountains, only proves that these creatures were buried suddenly and quickly by a worldwide flood.”
Why is there never a cow fossil in Cambrian strata? Why is there never a Triceratops in recent strata?
What it really proves is that the mountains haven’t always been there. The Himalayas, for example, were pushed upward by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. They’re still getting taller.
“The evolutionists have yet to explain the Cambrian Explosion, which debunks evolution, which shows the sudden appearance of advanced organisms.”
There are some good ideas, however. But anyway, the only way the Cambrian Explosion would debunk evolution is if no evolution had occurred since, which is clearly not the case.
“For evolutionists, a single cell organism was the first lifeform on Earth”
Nope, this isn’t true at all. The first “lifeform” was probably just a relatively simple self-replicating molecule.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
I look forward to this documentary, and I appreciate your involvement.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:04 am
Wow, this movie has not even been released yet, and already people are panning it.
Way to go, desperate Darwinists, you’re really proving your objectivity and professionalism, lol.
Go get em’, Ben.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:33 am
I am quite surprised at the attitude of the people posting on this site. I think they are confused on why ID needs to be given some room within academia. The reason is because without positing a “God” or in you would prefer, a universal rationality to creation, you cannot adequately explain so called “rules” of nature. They are simply random and therefore unpredictable.
It continues to amaze modern philosophers that such things as buildings and bridges remain standing… why? Because it is still inexplainable on how the workings of our mind, blueprints, theories etc. actually translate into reality, unless of course we can establish that there is indeed metaphysically a rationality to the universe that allows for some connection between thought and matter.
I have to admit however I would prefer that ID be justified within academia as metaphysical rather than traditional science. The whole problem however is that modern science does not want to study metaphysics. It is enough for them to use the scientific method, but the reality is they are not interested in understanding what must be the case for this method to yield truth.
Philosophy as the “Queen of the sciences” needs to be rehabilitated and I hope this movie makes this point.
It’s actually ironic that it is religious people that seem to be holding to a more honest view of rational investigation by advancing the importance of reason mediated by philosophy.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:22 am
This is hilarious, Ben Stein just proved his point in all these comments.
August 31st, 2007 at 5:24 am
Jacob Evilsizor’s books that he posts here never get read because they are just so much hot air.
So why not order a DVD on the Kansas Science Hearings? Just send $20 to the P.O. Box below. This DVD proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Darwinian evolution is a hoax, and that God (I.D.) is true:
New Liberty Videos
P.O. Box 25662
Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662
August 31st, 2007 at 5:32 am
Convince a man he came from a monkey, and he will act like a monkey.
August 31st, 2007 at 6:55 am
jbagail asks if my views and publications have caused me any professional problems. I recommend Googling “John A. Davison evolution” and going to what used to be my home page until the University of Vermont froze it in 2000. I recommend “What it means to be an anti-Darwinian at the University of Vermont” for starters. Most of my published papers are available at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum. They were also at one time all available at Uncommon Descent until David Springer, in characteristic fits of pique, removed them - twice. I don’t believe they are currently available there but I may be wrong.
I have very definitely never been in the closet with respect to my denunciation of the Darwinian farce. I have rejected both Christian Fundamentalism and Darwinian mysticism which is why I am so popular with both factions!
There is no place for religion in science, never has been, and Darwinism is very definitely a religion. Its altar is a roulette wheel flanked by very fuzzy dice. It even has patron saints in the form of Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr and most recently Richard Dawkins. I have not hesitated to describe them as the “Three Stooges” of the evolutionary literature. It is my “prescribed” destiny to restore my several brilliant sources to the prominence they have always deserved as the true pioneers in the study of the great mystery of organic evolution. Without them I could never have published “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166, 2005, or any of my other papers, including my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto.” Both of these are currently being discussed at “brainstorms” forum, the only major forum where I am still permitted to post. It is also far and away the most tolerant and least ideologically prejudiced forum of which I am aware.
Incidentally, I am no longer welcome to publish even in Rivista di Biologia, probably because of my rejection of dogma in any form as a valid scientific criterion. It is unfortunate because Giuseppi Sermonti was at one time very definitely my ally and I have always treated him with respect.
“We believe there is no reason for being forced to choose between “either randomness or the supernatural,” a choice into which advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living beings; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
August 31st, 2007 at 7:52 am
“I don’t think the point of this film (from what I have seen) is to shove the idea of God down people’s throats, it’s that tha academic establishment is very biased and anti-God and thus any academic who even mentions God is disliked.”
Which is why Ken Miller and Francis Collins, both of whom opely profess belief in God, have been reviled and terminated from their respective positions…
…oh, wait, they haven’t. They’re both quite well-respected in their (biological) fields. It would appear that your claim is not based upon reality.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:54 am
“Why is it when somone pipes up about ID, everyone against them feels they have to make it known that they are far too smart to beleive in such a stupid theory. ”
1) ID is not a “theory”.
2) People “make it known” that ID is not science by explaining why ID is not science. I know that you like to ignore the substance of objections to ID because it allows you to pretend that the opposition is merely arrogance, but your utter refusal to address the actual objections to ID — instead relying upon strawmen — is fundamentally dishonest.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:54 am
I believe in ID. Unfortunately Satan designed the universe and is our master. My master created all these disease, some of which can kill a human in minutes. Poisons, large predators, very high cliffs, islamofascists, bees, beer bottles, weather, water, slippery grocery store floors, hot dogs, testicles in easy-to-grab-or-kick central location–you cannot deny that Satan is the one true designer. Hail Satan!
August 31st, 2007 at 7:56 am
“Cameras from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and at least 40 other cameras were there recording this historical event. This was the BIG CHANCE for the pro-evolution scientists to show the world their OVERWELMING EVIDENCE that supports the theory of evolution.”
Because, of course, a Board of Education meeting is the appropriate venue for scientific discussion.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:58 am
“The Secular Humanists who force their religion totalitarian style on America by its scientific elite, media elite, …”
Ah, the “evolution = secular humanism” lie. Creationists have no shame.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am
“The reason is because without positing a “God” or in you would prefer, a universal rationality to creation, you cannot adequately explain so called “rules” of nature. They are simply random and therefore unpredictable.”
Your reasoning is illogical. In the abscence of an explanation for a given phenomenon, the rational course is to acknowledge that no explanation exists. It is not rational to invent an explanation merely to have an answer, regardless of any abscence of evidence for the explanation.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:52 am
“This is hilarious, Ben Stein just proved his point in all these comments.”
How so?B Please be specific.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
Hello,
The right to free speech and free inquiry is not infringed in the sciences - in the U.S. nobody has gone to prison for their research. It just conflicts with someone elses right to give their money to whom they please.
Another topic of speech that is suppressed in academia is the denial of the holocaust. In Germany you can even go to prison for holocaust denial. Would you equally defend the right to inquiry and free speech for those “historians”?
Peace,
Kevin
August 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Why do the heathen rage ?
Because Darwinism is their ‘creation story’ ?
August 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
There are some interviews with the executive producer of Expelled over at IDthefuture.com. Here are the direct links:
Expelling Dogma: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part I) — Today on ID The Future we catch up with Walt Ruloff, executive producer of the new Hollywood docudrama starring Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Today’s interview is the first of a two-part series about the making of the film. In this installment, Ruloff gives a brief overview of Expelled, explains how he came to spend over two years making the film, talks about intelligent design as a disruptive technology compared to dogmatic Darwinian evolution, and tells how the film will show that Darwinian evolution is a science stopper. Rather than get mired in the politics of the debate, Ruloff explains that Expelled gets to “where the rubber meets the road, where the science is being done.” http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-27T14_35_24-07_00
Nothing Up His Sleeve: Executive Producer Walt Ruloff and Expelled (Part II) — ID The Future presents the second installment of a two-part interview with Walt Ruloff, executive producer of the upcoming docudrama Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Today Ruloff explains how interviews were obtained with top Darwinists including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, and dispels claims that trickery and deception were used. He also provides an overview of the movie’s website, staff, and future projects.
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-08-29T10_52_26-07_00
August 31st, 2007 at 11:39 am
Well, I guess my government instructed science teacher was misinformed when he taught me that we came from the same family as monkeys!
A question for the evolutionists…
How do you live when you believe that you could have ended up an animal? Why do you then get appalled when someone murders your mother? Are we not merely offspring of animals? Where’s the point of origin for your ethics? Help me understand why it should be different for humans to behave a certain way than animals?
By the way Intelligent Design does not teach that the world was created with violence. You are welcome to read Genesis 1-4 to learn more. Visit: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&version=65
So, why would a loving God allow tragedies to take place?
Shortly after the terrible tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, author Ravi Zacharias was invited to speak. Now faced with the enormity of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, we find ourselves asking similar questions. Here are the open forum Q&A sessions from Ravi’s meetings in Littleton…
Visit: http://www.rzim.org
August 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Wow, the “attack ID and its supporters wherever it is mentioned” crowd wasted no time getting mobilized for this one. Must be some juicy stuff here to get them so riled up so quickly! Hopefully lots of people will see this and discover what has happened to freedom of inquiry in our institutions.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
I’d guess the reason Ferris Bueller took the day off is that he’d already learned all that Ben Stein had to teach him: The answer to everything is, “God did it”.
On the other hand, why wouldn’t Ben be expelled from a good school if the only answer he could give to every question (yes, I know, IDists implausibly accept science outside of biology, but they’re inconsistent when they demand that evidence actually be used to back up charges against them, rather than vague (and typically wrong) analogies) was “God did it”? There’s actually more to investigation and learning than resorting to Behe’s puff of smoke every time the questions get hard.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
August 31st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Dear Mr. Stein,
I am not sure whether or not ID could be considered science, in the modern sense. It is certainly science under the classical definition. However, no one has ever been able to satisfactorily define what exactly science is. I believe one of the greatest crimes in modern thought is that knowledge is fragmented into various, separate, non-overlapping subjects. In reality, philosophy, science, metaphysics, and all other fields frequently overlap and are actually just one subject. I cannot talk about how something works without talking about why it works, what causes it to work, and where it came from. Humans ask questions. It’s our nature to seek answers.
As for disproving atheistic materialism, it is quite easy.
1) Assume that everything is the product of irrational causes.
2) Man is the product of irrational causes.
3) All that man does is ultimately the product of irrational causes.
4) However, I know for a fact that I am rational, and what I do is not random. I decide to do it, and I plan it beforehand.
5) Therefore, everything is not the product of irrational causes.
6) Rational causes cannot be the product of irrational causes.
7) If rational causes were the product of irrational causes, they would ultimately still be irrational causes. Otherwise, the irrational causes would produce rational causes, and thus contain the potential for rationality and thereby be, in fact, not irrational causes, but rather rational causes.
9) All causes that caused the rational causes that produced me must also be rational causes.
10) An infinite past is impossible. There is a first cause. Because all subsequent causes are rational, the first cause must also be rational.
Several objections can be leveled against my reasoning. For instance, one might say, “Why can’t irrational causes produce rational causes?” If they did, rational causes would just be another kind of irrational cause. The mechanisms behind both kinds of causes would be random and unguided. Rational causes, by definition, are guided by reason. It is impossible for irrational causes to produce rational causes. Either reason, or thought, comes first, then material, or material has always existed and reason never will. But don’t we already have reason? See where I’m going with this…
If atheistic materialism is true, and there is no reason behind anything ultimately, then we should give up science. The whole purpose of science is to come up with a rational explanation for things that happen in the universe. Reason cannot explain how irrational things work, and irrationality can explain nothing at all by definition.
In order to do science, you must have a reason or rationality at the origin of the universe. Call it “God,” “the universal consciousness,” or whatever. The point is, it’s there, or else we shouldn’t even be arguing about whose scientific theory is more reasonable, because reason does not exist.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Jacob Evilsizor:
you wrote in your first post:
“The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.”
This is a complete strawman arguement and is invalid. No one is brainwashed at all, we learn it in school and not until junior high, the only requirement is to learn the priciples, there is no ideology there, that is your own insunuation and is dishonest. Also, you use the arguement from authority incorrectly. When there is a scientific consensus on a theory that is not an appeal to authority - an appeal to authority would be to cite just one scientist, not a whole body of independent scientists working in differing fields all using the theory of evolution to develop real world applications. Also, the insults render your arguement even less compelling.
Your whole second paragraph is an arguement from incredulity. The “contradictions” that you have personally selected to make your arguement stronger are backed up by no refrences to research that support your opinion. An opinion that is based on the inability for you to understand the deeper elements of evolution. Ignorance of a subject just renders your arguements vapid because you present nothing to support your conclusions. Also the “bait n switch” analogy was another strawman. The only evidence I see in all your posts is evidence of intellectual dishonesty and continuous logical fallacies. You dont even properly apply logical fallacies when you try to critisize other arguements. Your understanding of evolution is obviously layman and the areas you try to debunk are so beyond you that you are making glaring errors everywhere.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-59.html
I hope you will all find this page of interest. There is no reason to repeat myself here, especially since I am getting hunt-and-peck cramps!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. davison
August 31st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Here is Darwinism evidence for macroevolution according to the talkorigins site:
“They have a number of fragmentary fossils, that there fossils records are incomplete, species-to-species transitions are harder to document, their fossil records are so fragmentary that they can’t get much detailed information and, also the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can’t be identified.”
Really? And with such pieces they are able to make a complete history of ape to man or other living things such as primitive jawless fish to amphibians? Do they actually have a jawless fish? [How did that poor thing eat? Just making a funny here.]
So, do not preach to me the talkorigins site and the 29+ evidences of macroevolution please, been there, done it and still don’t believe it.
I logically do not buy it.
Let’s look at a living fossil for example, the fossil of the Coelacanth, found in the highest fossil record that had became extinct 65 millions years ago according to the evolutionists. But in 1938, one was found swimming along the coastline of Madagascar in deep water, and since then, many more have been found in Indonesia and Japan. And this fish who was supposed to have been extinct, was compared to the fossil fish of 65 millions of years ago, looked exactly identical, no changes in the evolution of the Coelacanth at all. But the coelacanth somehow miraculously was untouched by evolution. Everything else had evolved except this fish along with some other living fossils?
“I find it amazing how this little fish out swam evolution which was trying to catch up to his tail. It must have been one survival of the fittest race. Evolution verses fish with the fish making it to the winners line first.” High five to this little fish.
And then you have the talkorigins site, with all their skulls lined up, saying how we evolved, oops, I meant originated from ape. The first skull being ape, and the next skull somewhere down the line being more ape but some man, and continuing in this pattern until man came to be! Isn’t this in a round about way, saying we evolved?
How can anyone actually come to any kind of conclusions from just a skull? Where are the rest of the skeletal remains that show this actual data of ape turning into man? Could it be because of fragmentary fossils, or incomplete records, species-to-species transitions are harder to document, fossil records are so fragmentary that they can’t get much detailed information and, also the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can’t be identified???
How has ToE (Darwinism evolution) been documented over the years?
It keeps getting rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and will forever be rewritten and rewritten …….
But the James King Version Bible is written.
~M
August 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
sorry for my typo, the King James Version of the Bible.
~M
August 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm
John A. Davison said: “There is no place for religion in science, never has been, and Darwinism is very definitely a religion.”
Defining “Darwinism” as a religion is to water down the term so much that it could apply to anything. For instance, I subscribe to the religion that the Earth is round and orbits the sun.
The irony is that if Darwinism is a religion, then ID is most *definitely* a religion, and by your own admission, is not science.
August 31st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Proverbs 26:11-11
11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly. (NIV)
My children see faces in clouds and draw lines between dots where there were none before.
If I have a box that I know to be empty and an identical box that is heavier, it is reasonable to assume it has something in it. It is not reasonable to assume it is the toy I always wanted.
If you want to know what is in the box (did the cat die?) you have to open it. And as much as we like to pretend, you can’t do it from the inside.
You want fossils to be as old as you want them to be to see the links you want to see, and that’s circular reasoning.
We have synthetics, space travel, and computers because of solid, observational, experimental, empirical science.
Cataloging living organisms by their structures and structural function is useful and provides new and continuing avenues of medical and pharmacoligic advances.
Making assumptions of age and relationship that cannot be tested is at best opinion and at worst a money making scheme (Just ask Nebraska Man - oink,oink). And when people use it to pry God out of their lives and the lives of others, then it’s a philosophy, a faith, a religion - not science textbook material.
Things we cannot study on our own, we have to trust a reliable witness for. I’ve never had polio. I’m told it’s because I was given a vaccination for it when I was younger. I never caught it and other people I know had the vaccine that never caught it. It may be incidental. There may have been some new food preservative that interfered with Polio infection in this country. But I have trusted the witness of the medical establishment enough to have other vaccinations like tetnis for myself and my children. There are over 180 direct prophecies for the Christ and Jesus fulfilled every one. He rode a donkey into Jerusalem the very day he said over 500 years earlier through Danial that he would . The same witness told me he created the universe, and I’ve seen nothing to discredit that and much in support.
It’s only in the last two centuries people have been measuring the speed of light. That doesn’t mean we know what it was 5, 10 13 thousand years ago. E=mc^2 gave a good estimation of the blast at Hiroshima - within the limits of our ability to measure. But, even given improvements in accuracy and corrections of old data for the atmosphere and the like, there are some recent measurments that show light is starting to slow down…hmmm.
God didn’t make the world to last, he made it to last long enough.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Through all this discussion I believe we are digressing from the true point. “The Beginning” can not be proved either way. Therefore the whole discussion should be the talk of philosophy until evidence (which is a requirement for science) is found supporting either argument.
August 31st, 2007 at 10:55 pm
“I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID ‘theory’ is science, I will vote against them.” – Dr. PZ Myers
August 31st, 2007 at 11:03 pm
scientists may have the facts but creationists have the tactics…
August 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
An Aug 2007 Harvard report…Basically admits that there is no transitional fossils outlining human evolution Please refer page 2 figure 2
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2001e.pdf
CHICAGO (Reuters) - An ancient skull and upper jawbone from two early branches of the human family tree — Homo erectus and Homo habilis — suggest the early human ancestors may have lived close together for half a million years, researchers said on Wednesday.
The fossils, discovered in eastern Africa, challenge the understanding that humans evolved one after another like a line of dominoes, from ancient Homo habilis to Homo erectus and eventually to Homo sapiens, or modern people.
“There has been a view that has suggested habilis very slowly evolved into erectus,” said Susan Anton, a professor of anthropology at New York University. “Now we have the two cohabitating, so that can no longer be the case.”
My Evo friends say well its ok for science to be wrong, if they admit there mistake! I pointed out to them that almost every species shown on the tree were listed as a mistake!……..Yes the tree is being chopped down!!!!
August 31st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
“Why do the heathen rage ?
Because Darwinism is their ‘creation story’ ?”
Perhaps you should ask a question that does not dishonestly misframe the issue.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:38 pm
“How do you live when you believe that you could have ended up an animal? Why do you then get appalled when someone murders your mother? Are we not merely offspring of animals? Where’s the point of origin for your ethics? Help me understand why it should be different for humans to behave a certain way than animals?”
Your question is based on the premise that all non-human animals behave in exactly the same way. This is a demonstratably false premise. As such, your question is invalid.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Is it just me, or do the darwinians seem just a tad defensive? Funny how much EMOTION is stirred up by any challenge to the holy grail of evolution. They are STILL publishing those painted up butterflies pinned to that tree! What a HOOT! How can they keep a straight face?
Go get ‘em, Ben!
August 31st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
“Really? And with such pieces they are able to make a complete history of ape to man or other living things such as primitive jawless fish to amphibians?”
No, and no one claims that a complete established lineage of all species has been determined.
“Do they actually have a jawless fish?”
Yes. Had you done any research, you would know this.
“So, do not preach to me the talkorigins site and the 29+ evidences of macroevolution please, been there, done it and still don’t believe it.
I logically do not buy it.”
Your personal incredulity is not a valid rebuttal. Additionaly, that you are apparently unaware of the documentation of jawless fish puts your claim that you have actually examined the evidence into doubt; had you actually done any research, you would not have had need to ask the question.
“Let’s look at a living fossil for example, the fossil of the Coelacanth, found in the highest fossil record that had became extinct 65 millions years ago according to the evolutionists. But in 1938, one was found swimming along the coastline of Madagascar in deep water, and since then, many more have been found in Indonesia and Japan. And this fish who was supposed to have been extinct, was compared to the fossil fish of 65 millions of years ago, looked exactly identical, no changes in the evolution of the Coelacanth at all.”
This is false, and you are a liar for making the claim: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
The Coelacanth species extant today is not “identical” to Coelacanth fossil specimens dated at 65 million years in age. Had you actually researched this subject, you would know that.
“But the coelacanth somehow miraculously was untouched by evolution. Everything else had evolved except this fish along with some other living fossils?”
Even if the Coelacanth fossils dated at 65 million years of age were identical to Coelacanth specimens found living today, which they are not, this would not be a problem for evolution. Evolution does not mandate change. The theory of evolution explains how organisms change through time over successive generations when selective reproductive pressures result in offspring shifting genetically from their parents. If there are no extant pressures selecting for change in the population, there is no reason that the population cannot remain relatively genetically stagnant.
“I find it amazing how this little fish out swam evolution which was trying to catch up to his tail.”
Your claim is based upon a demonstratably false premise. Your claim regarding the Coelacanth fossil is a demonstratable lie. It is telling that your strongest argument is predicated on both a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution itself as well as a factually incorrect claim.
“It must have been one survival of the fittest race. Evolution verses fish with the fish making it to the winners line first.” High five to this little fish.”
Please provide an argument that 1) does not misrepresent the theory of evolution and 2) is not based upon a lie.
“And then you have the talkorigins site, with all their skulls lined up, saying how we evolved, oops, I meant originated from ape. The first skull being ape, and the next skull somewhere down the line being more ape but some man, and continuing in this pattern until man came to be! Isn’t this in a round about way, saying we evolved?”
Your statement above does not appear to be, in any way, a coherent argument of any kind.
“How can anyone actually come to any kind of conclusions from just a skull? Where are the rest of the skeletal remains that show this actual data of ape turning into man?”
You claim that you have actually studied the subject. If you had studied the subject, you would know that the skulls are telling specimens, but it is not only the skulls that have been used to establish lineages. It would appear that your claim of prior research is itself a lie.
“Could it be because of fragmentary fossils, or incomplete records, species-to-species transitions are harder to document, fossil records are so fragmentary that they can’t get much detailed information and, also the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can’t be identified???”
No.
“How has ToE (Darwinism evolution) been documented over the years?
It keeps getting rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and will forever be rewritten and rewritten …….”
Please explain how revision of a scientific theory in light of new evidence is a weakness.
“But the James King Version Bible is written.”
Yes, we are aware that the Bible is never revised, no matter how clearly claims within the text demonstratably contradict observed reality. That a text has never been revised is, in no way at all, an indicator of the validity of the claims of the text, and it is fundamentally dishonest of you to imply such.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:49 pm
“You want fossils to be as old as you want them to be to see the links you want to see, and that’s circular reasoning.”
Please try to understand that your personal ignorance of the means by which fossil ages are determined is not “circular reasoning”. That you are willfully ignorant of science is not itself evidence against any scientific field.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“Making assumptions of age and relationship that cannot be tested is at best opinion and at worst a money making scheme (Just ask Nebraska Man - oink,oink). ”
Nebraska Man was not a “money making scheme”, and you are a liar for suggesting as much. “Nebraska Man” was the result of a non-science lay publication blowing one researcher’s speculation on a tooth find out of proportion and publishing claims not supported by any scientist at the time. The tooth was analyzed and never accepted as a human ancestor or even hominid. The man who found the tooth expressed skepticism at the possibility that the tooth was hominid in origin, and the tooth was determined to be porcine within three years of the discovery. It was never accepted by mainstream scientists. Only those who have done no research or those who are lying claim otherwise.
“It’s only in the last two centuries people have been measuring the speed of light. That doesn’t mean we know what it was 5, 10 13 thousand years ago.”
There are very drastic consequences for a nonconstant speed of light that would have left behind observable evidence. Thus far, no such evidence has been observed. If you have evidence that the speed of light has not been constant, then it is upon you to show as much. Otherwise, your claim has no merit, and is irrelevant in light of extensive research supporting the speed of light as a constant.
“But, even given improvements in accuracy and corrections of old data for the atmosphere and the like, there are some recent measurments that show light is starting to slow down…hmmm.”
Yet you fail to reference any of these references. Curious.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“Through all this discussion I believe we are digressing from the true point. “The Beginning” can not be proved either way.”
The theory of evolution addresses emergence of extant biodiversity through common ancestry. The unscientific conjecture known as “Intelligent Design” posits that the process of evolution was driven, in part, by a “designer” who, through undocumented mechanisms, “designed” certain biological structures that allegedly could not have emerged without such intervention. I am not certain why you believe that “The Beginning” is the subject of discussion.
September 1st, 2007 at 1:50 am
What I just don’t get, and so far no-one has adequately answered it, is why it is okay to thrust the religion of humanism (note the ~ism there folks) down everyone’s throats, expect us to swallow evolution as the only real theory (note again: it’s still actually only a theory), and not allow anyone to teach, believe, whatever, another theory. Just as evolution is being tested, why not test ID as well, rather than just throwing it out? Read some of ID places (do a google search and use your brain) and you might find that there is actually quite a lot of evidence being put forward… Think for yourself - try it one day, it’s not just a novelty.
September 1st, 2007 at 2:23 am
“What I just don’t get, and so far no-one has adequately answered it, is why it is okay to thrust the religion of humanism (note the ~ism there folks) down everyone’s throats,”
Non-sequitur. Evolution is not “humanism”, nor is it a religion.
“expect us to swallow evolution as the only real theory (note again: it’s still actually only a theory),”
Your statement suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific terminology.
In science, a “theory” is the highest level an explanation can attain. Science seeks to explain data points, often called facts or observations, through sets of statements invoking known, observed mechanisms. When such an explanation is initially devised, it is called a hypothesis. This hypothesis is then tested; a proper hypothesis must contain sufficient substance from which predictions of future observations (based upon calculated consequences of the hypothesis being true). Note that I have said “observations”, and not “events”. This is because there may be a case where an event has already occured, but the result of this event has yet to be observed. In such a case, even though the event has happened in the past, a prediction can be made about the observation that has not yet occured. Verification of such predictions strengthens confidence in the theory. Additionally, a proper hypothesis must be structured in such a way that certain hypothetical observations should never occur should the hypothesis be true. If such an observation is noted, the hypothesis is weakened, or even falsified.
Once a hypothesis has established a sufficient deal of confidence amongst scientists within the respective field, and it has accumulated enough data to form a very coherent explanation for a very specific scope of observations, the explanation is elevated to the status of “theory”. There is no higher status for an explanation. A theory may be refined further, but it can never become anything “more” than a theory; it can only become less, by being falsified through the observation of contradictory data.
As such, when you claim that evoultion is “only a theory”, you imply that evolution could be “more” than a theory. This shows that you do not understand the scientific method, because if you did have such an understanding you would know that there is nothing “more” than theory in science.
“and not allow anyone to teach, believe, whatever, another theory.”
The first problem with your claim is that you have not identified any other explanation that has attained the status of “theory”. The second problem with your claim is that you have not demonstrated that anyone is attempting to prohibit belief or teaching of any other explanation.
“Just as evolution is being tested, why not test ID as well, rather than just throwing it out?”
The problem with testing ID is that it makes no testable predictions. In fact, it does not even offer a mechanism. ID claims that certain biological structures were “designed”, but no ID proponent has yet offered an explanation as to how this “design” was carried out. What physical processes were involved in the mechanism of “design”? In the case of evolution, the observed mechanism of parent organisms producing offspring with physical, hereditable differences was always presented as the driving force behind the process. If ID proponents cannot even explain the mechanism by which “design” occurs, then they actually have no claims of merit; they have conjecture that, ultimately, is meaningless and there is no means by which it can be tested.
“Read some of ID places (do a google search and use your brain) and you might find that there is actually quite a lot of evidence being put forward… Think for yourself - try it one day, it’s not just a novelty.”
I have “thought for myself”. In so doing, I have observed that Intelligent Design posits the existence of an intelligent agent — for which no positive evidence is provided, or even a coherent definition of this agent — using unspecified methods to “design” certain biological structures. An explanation that invents, without evidence, extraneous entities and invokes completely unspecified methods is not science. Science is about using observed events as a means of explaining other observed events. Thus far, no ID proponent has offered an explanation of a “design” event analagous or identical to the “design” of biological structures that they assert has occured.
September 1st, 2007 at 4:44 am
It bothers me, this condescending, belittling tone of those who address Mr. Stein as “Ben”. And there are those demanding more evidence for ID. It sort of goes back to the “golden rule”—he who has the gold, makes the rules. For quite some time, those in control of academic institutions, government research funding, and research journals have rejected the dissenting views of proponents of Intelligent Design. Then it’s no wonder the ‘apparent’ evidence, as measured in published peer-reviewed journals may presently seem one-sided. A good, healthy debate over issues that this movie will bring to society can have a useful outcome. In the meantime, if you feel that your side of the issue is being threatened, there is no need to impolitely speak disparagingly of Mr. Stein.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:00 am
For the record is there anyone else posting here who has published a paper in a refereed journal which deals with the MECHANISM of a past organic evolution which is the ONLY issue at stake? Certainly the “Three Stooges” of evolutionary science, Dawkins, Elsberry and Myers, haven’t. Only one of them, Dawkins, has published ANYTHING dealing with the subject, in a series of self-generated, unrefereed fantasies, each more bizarre than its predecessor, ranging from “selfish genes” to “blind mountaineering watchmakers” to God only knows what lies in the future for us to wonder at. Most recently he has abandoned any pretense at science to join forces with P.Z. Myers and Christopher Hitchens in an insane venture to disprove a Creator, the most incredibly mindless effort ever launched and one no real scientist could even dream of conceiving, let alone attempting.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 1st, 2007 at 8:58 am
Dimensio
On more than one occasion you have accused posters of lying or being dishonest.
A person is lying if they state something as true that they themselves do not think to be true.
Now I can understand Darwinists getting a tad defensive knowadays but unless you have some God-like ability to know for sure what they believe vs. what they say, then you are being dishonest in accusing them.
(assuming you understand what a lie is - which I would think is a reasonable assumption in your case)
September 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Ben
I love the clip of you at the end of the trailer adjusting your tie before you walk off camera.
You adjust the tie off-center in one direction then balance it with a off-center confident smile in the opposite direction. Wonderful effect !
Congratulations and I’m looking forward to this movie.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am
I’m waiting for someone to explain- if matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did the first matter come from?
September 1st, 2007 at 10:00 am
Apparently, judging form the silence, no one else commenting here has published a word in a refereed journal concerning the mechanism of organic evolution.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
When little is known with certainty, every man is an expert.
Montaigne put it this way -
“Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”
and
“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 1st, 2007 at 11:19 am
See my post 902, for the why of this documentary/movie.
We live in a world, where learning leads to knowledge, and without questions, no new knowledge arises. Now, to learn knowledge, one must be open to explore outside of their thinking. As for myself, I am always thinking. But I don’t stop at just thinking, I go further and explore, see where my thinking will lead, and from that I learn more knowledge. And the more knowledge I learn, the more common sense and logic step in and leads me to a certain conclusion. And once I reach this conclusion, I will know in my heart, if the knowledge I have learned is of a logical common sense answer to the question that lead me to the initial thinking in the first place. Is this conclusion; is the answer, the right one? I can honestly say, Yes it is.
Always ask questions and don’t let anyone tell you to ever stop thinking.
For those of you with an open mind and a willingness to learn more knowledge, please visit http://www.charlesdarwin.org/ scroll down to the bottom of the page and on the left hand side you will read:
UCTV FEATURES NEW “FOCUS ON ORIGINS” ONLINE VIDEO SERIES
Click the link that says
Focus on Origins
Or click the link below.
http://www.uctv.tv/library-human.asp?seriesnumber=28
And it is clearly heard in some of the interviews that some scientists are selective of their words, that they infer, but don’t confirm, and I can assume it is because they’d be on their way out.
If people understood evolution better, they would be less inclined to believe it.
People can still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. You don’t know if you’re making correct statements.
As I stated in my post 902, certain scientific data should not be suppressed just because it doesn’t agree w/ Darwinism evolution. Science is being held back because scientists are not allowed to pursue new research, just because of it’s implication or what it may infer.
This documentary is not about teaching God in school. It’s about needing changes in the Big Science world, and perhaps getting people in general to explore outside the box of Darwinism evolution.
Horse evolution:
A quote by Dr. Niles Eldredge (who is an evolutionist)
‘I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem.’ Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History. Unquote
As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks,’ and the famous paleontologist Niles Eldredge called the textbook picture ‘lamentable’ and ‘a classical case of paleontologic museology.’ As shown in a detailed thesis by Walter Barnhart, the horse ‘series’ is an interpretation of the data. He documents how different pictures of horse evolution were drawn by different evolutionists from the same data, as the concept of evolution itself ‘evolved.’
This especially applies to reconstructing the animals from fossil skeletons, which are usually very incomplete. The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut wrote:
‘It takes a great deal of reading to find out for any particular genus just how complete the various parts of the body are and how much in the illustrated figures is due to clever reconstruction. The early papers were always careful to indicate by dotted lines or lack of shading the precise limits of the reconstructions, but later authors are not so careful.’
Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’
Millions of readers of National Geographic would no doubt have been impressed by this ‘proof’ of evolution and not given the matter any further thought. But what does this evidence really show?
Clearly, the one fact that is ‘verified’ is that three-toed and one-toed horses both existed at the same time. Both specimens were trapped in the same volcanic eruption, in the same locality, ‘frozen in time’. This hardly supports the idea that one type was the ancestor of the other.
There is a lot of info that is not made known to the public. And a lot of questionable and even disproved info, does get taught as literal truth when it isn’t. This is what I mean by people having the right to know and vote on as a taxpayer. Should such so-called facts that are not facts be taught? Textbooks should be cleaned up of all the garbage that is not true of Darwinism evolution.
~M
September 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Isn’t Evolution Just a Theory?
Dimensio has been doing a great job of explaining what a theory is in the scientific sense. This short video, from the WGBH Educational Foundation, complements what he has already tried to explain:
“This video for high school students explores the scientific meaning of the word ‘theory’ and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html
September 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
“Science Must Destroy Religion” – Sam Harris
September 1st, 2007 at 11:55 am
“For the record is there anyone else posting here who has published a paper in a refereed journal which deals with the MECHANISM of a past organic evolution which is the ONLY issue at stake?”
Are you being deliberatly dishonest, or are you really not doing any research at all?
The mechanism of “a past organic evolution” is the same as the mechanism of evolution as it occurs today: random mutations filtered through the non-random process of natural selection. Evolution has never been posited to occur through any other mechanism. Random mutations produce offspring that traits slightly different than the parents, with the ability to pass those traits to offspring and natural selection acts as a control that filters out traits conferring a reduced reproductive chance within a given environment while increasing the prevalence of traits conferring an increased reproductive chance within a given environment.
These phenomena are both well-documented. Your question was answered 150 years ago. You are trying to pretend that evolution in the “past” involved some mythical events that no longer occur in the present. It didn’t. The process of evolution as it occured in the past was driven by mechanisms that still occur within biological populations today.
“Certainly the “Three Stooges” of evolutionary science, Dawkins, Elsberry and Myers, haven’t.”
Yes, they have. Your willful ignorance of the subject, and your ad hominem attacks against scientists who don’t agree with your ignorance-fueld conclusions do not prove a point.
“Only one of them, Dawkins, has published ANYTHING dealing with the subject, in a series of self-generated, unrefereed fantasies, each more bizarre than its predecessor, ranging from “selfish genes” to “blind mountaineering watchmakers” to God only knows what lies in the future for us to wonder at.”
I notice that you don’t actually reference any specific writing of Dawkins. It’s as though you don’t actually understand the subject on which you speak at all, and you’re blathering on with vague assertions in a futile attempt to look as though you’ve intelligently considered the subject.
It’s not working. You don’t look intelligent.
“Most recently he has abandoned any pretense at science to join forces with P.Z. Myers and Christopher Hitchens in an insane venture to disprove a Creator, the most incredibly mindless effort ever launched and one no real scientist could even dream of conceiving, let alone attempting.”
Dawkins’s stance on religion and the concept of a “creator” in general is totally irrelevant to the field of biology, much less the theory of evolution. The former does not, in any way, relate to the latter. Your statement is a non-sequitur.
“It is hard to believe isn’t it?”
What, that someone like you would ask questions about the theory of evolution as though they have never been addressed, when in fact they have been answered for over a century, and that you dishonestly attempt to conflate a biologist’s stance on religion with the theory of evolution? No, I’ve come to expect that sort of intellectual dishonesty from ID pushers and creationists.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
“A person is lying if they state something as true that they themselves do not think to be true.
Now I can understand Darwinists getting a tad defensive knowadays but unless you have some God-like ability to know for sure what they believe vs. what they say, then you are being dishonest in accusing them.”
You are correct. I am being presumptious in my accusations. It is entirely possible that many whom I have accused of lying are, in fact, simply completely ignorant of the fundamental issues because they have done no research prior to spouting off falsehoods as fact. In this case, their problem is one of sloppy laziness rather than dishonesty.
However, when someone claims that I have made statements that I have demonstratably not made, they are a liar. When someone claims to have researched the subject of evolution and then immediately follows up with a demonstratably false claim about the subject, they are a liar.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:59 am
“I’m waiting for someone to explain- if matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did the first matter come from?”
What has your question to do with the subject of evolution?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“Apparently, judging form the silence, no one else commenting here has published a word in a refereed journal concerning the mechanism of organic evolution.”
Actually, the mechanism was stated my others many days ago. You just want to wrongly pretend that biologists maintain that there was some “other” mechanism at work in the past that no longer occurs in the present. Either you are too arrogant to understand that you are simply wrong, or you are a liar. Which is it?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
And still the question remains:
How do Darwinian mechanisms produce new biological information?
September 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Go read the book “Darwin’s God: Evolution and the problem of evil” by Cornelius Hunter. Once you’ve read it, then, maybe, just maybe, some of you will have your eyes opened to the fact that Darwinian Evolution is nothing more than a religion in and of itself. Don’t bother Flaming me. I won’t respond.
September 1st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Dimensio Says:
August 31st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
This is false, and you are a liar for making the claim: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
The Coelacanth species extant today is not “identical” to Coelacanth fossil specimens dated at 65 million years in age. Had you actually researched this subject, you would know that.
Dimensio,
You have been hoodwinked into believing false information. The Coelacanth is still a Coelacanth,…It did not evolve from being a Fish to any other new species. That means it is not a representative example of MACRO-evolution as Talkorigions would like you to believe!Infact the majority of those 29 proofs are evidence of MICRO-evolution(Which is a FACT!)…Not Macro-evolution(Which is not a FACT!). But you knew that already,didnt you?
I used to believe in MACRO-Evolution until I researched and found too many discrepancies (The same ones Gould and other scientist say in the fossil record). If you remove the fear of the potential implications of Darwin’s theory, and focus on Validation of TOE(MACRO) on its own merits, you will be shocked at the total lack of evidence and how scientist have been more than willing to compromise or manipulate the scientific data to support their belief in Macro-evolution. You do not find such blatant discrepancies in other scientific fields.
September 1st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I always ask Evolutionist to just show me ONE undisputed empirical evidence of transitional fossils proving MACRO_EVOLUTION. I am met with Deflection,insults, or drivel, but no proof! Infact, One person has an standing offer to pay over $1,000,000 for this evidence,..but alas no takers! If there is no transitional fossils, then the theory is falsified! Its pretty simple to falsify, but too many evolutionist get hung up on the implications of Falsifying Macro-evolution…mainly that their is an intelligent designer!
September 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hey Bill # 961
Evolution is an explanation on how life evolves not on how matter is created. Take that question to another blog
September 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Whoa, reading many of these anti-ID comments really does convince one that freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I concur with ben that the major message that has been promoted for decades is that Darwinian evolution is scientific fact and cannot be refuted or questioned in any way and if you do, you are stupid. All of the posts question the intelligence or in some way label Ben as stupid, crazy, or naive. I suspect that these same critics have howled at the moon about racism, bigotry, Christians being judgmental and mean spirited.
Congratulations Ben on being labeled mad, crazy, insane, and in cahoots with evil people, It reminds me of the historical accounts of the criticism that Copernicus and Galileo were met with by questioning the dogman of the day. You are in good company.
Thanks for having an inquiring mind and being willing to explore.
September 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
ugh… I like Ben Stein, but he has crossed the line into crazy.
September 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Ok, lets get back to the real point at hand, is ID science. Well, for ID to be considered science it has to meet the standards of what is considered science. Unfortunately Behe and other senior fellows of DI themselves have shown us in their own words that it doesn’t meet the scientific standards. In the Dover case Behe said that if they were to accept ID then they would also have to accept Astrology. Astrology is a pseudoscience that deals with the super-natural and if he puts ID in the same category, then it is not science. Also, as I’m sure mentioned before on this blog, the ID community needs contribute papers to a peer reviewed journal. I noticed a recent post asking for papers on evolution submitted to peer reviewed journals, You can’t be serious! Here is starting point for you.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&start=10&sa=N
Also if you really want to get an idea how much evidence there is for evolution, check this out. Its just a summary of the major points. I’d plan to set aside a week or two to read it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Now back to the original point. Though I did take the time to point out the wealth of evidence for evolution (from many independent labs researching other sciences), its not up to scientists to prove that its still does have many legs to stand on, its up to ID supporters to prove ID is not just a religious movement, much like fellows of the DI have openly admitted, and has some real science to contribute. Thats done through the methods used by scientist for before our own lifetime. If the DI doesn’t want to step up and follow the rules, then they can’t whine about not being accepted in the science community or in the classrooms.
Show me what you have to prove you’re hypothesis, then we’ll have something to talk about.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here is a nice piece by a Grad Student Abbie Smith, where she shows that Behe was incorrect in his recent book ‘The Edge of Evolution’ concerning HIV. She not only show he missed some easily accessible information concerning recent research, she goes on to show that during is evolution it created a new gene, new molecular machinery, and new protein-protein interactions.
Her original post: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
Reposted at Pandas Thumb
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv_hiv_versus.html
Behe doesn’t respond but has one of his foot soldiers Casey Luskin post a response.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/pandasthumb_fails.html
Abbie Smith shows that Casey Luskin doesn’t understand what she was saying and that he references a paper that refutes him.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/send-in-pawns.html
Here is a little extra for those of you who might have missed some of the important points, a nice illustration Abbie posted that shows the EVOLUTION of HIV!
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/illustrated-guide-to-vpu.html
make note of the points it develops new molecular machinery!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 1st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
The most critical flaw in intelligent design is that it postulates an incomplete premise. No one can define this ‘greater intelligence’ that spawned the universe. Further, most people who adhere to this continue to add to the probabilities that not only was this ‘greater intelligence’ smart, but that they knew everything. That they existed everywhere at every time throughout history. That they had some kind of specific intent that (usually) is one of peace and love.
No where is this evident! We know based on observation that a great many animals derive their food from other living beings. We know the earth is a very violent place where people die by volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, heat, and cold. The concept of some universal love is not evident. Now if a person wishes to perceive the universe is somehow beholden to mankind as the ultimate expression of a creator–hey, go nuts.
It is not supportable scientifically, and as such it cannot be reliably considered as a valid explanation for how the universe was formed and our place in it. To be fair, even the ID supporters only support one version of this creator–they categorically deny every other creation myth. Their ‘open-mindedness’ as you consider it, is strictly limited to be compatible with only one specific religious background.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
If matter can’t be created and destroyed, that means it is infinite. Being infinite means NO beginning and NO it, it just is. So, matter has always been and always will be. Besides, if it CAN NOT be created, then why are you asking “how was it created?” C’mon, at least 30 secs of brain power is all that is needed here.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Eh, that should read, “If matter can’t be created nor destroyed…”
Looking for an edit button if anyone has a spare.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:32 pm
To John A. Davidson, while bucking some ideas can sometimes be admirable, this is the wrong idea to buck. I can only wonder what credentials you really hold. Way back in ‘94 in my Freshman Biology class we “evolved” fruit flies like many biologists have done. My group turned black fruit flies brown, another group evolved a group with an extra set of wings (pretty freaky looking through the ’scope). Also, Darwin pointed out a group of birds that were “evolved” by researches over several years. Any change that leads to a new species is an evolution. In light of such experiments, I couldn’t see how any person could say otherwise. There’s a researcher at the University of Louisville who has done the fruit fly experiment hundreds of times over the past couple of decades and published them. And I’m sure he’s only one in thousands that do the same annually. To buck evolution is analogous to watching a book fall millions of times and saying gravity doesn’t exist.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Intelligent Design is not science. If you wish for a defense of this position, read the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision. On the other hand, acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is not religion. So would everyone stop calling it “Darwinism” as if it is - that goes for people on both sides of this argument.
Don’t preach under the guise of science and I won’t test what you say in church.
~Christie
By the way John, what journal was that article published in? I’m currious to read it.
September 1st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ben, congrats if this is a cynical moneymaker for ya. Otherwise, why are you whining like a bitch. First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn’t say you can pick my pocket to use my tax dollars to promote your “dead-jew-zombie-son-of-creator-or-something-like-that” entity in public schools. Once you get in my roll, then it’ll be the turn of the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, whatever. I’m a working stiff, you’ve made your money. Stop lying, you’re not persecuted. Take a rock, throw it out the window, you’ll hit a church that, unlike me, doesn’t pay tax. Schools are underfunded enough without allowing nutjobs in denying evolution, contesting gravity or saying that the Earth was excreted 6,000 years ago by a crotchety asshole.
Hope you make a buck from the creationist fruits. Also hope that you support your local school by buying some equipment for their science classrooms and letting their underpaid teachers get on with the thankless task of educating the doctors and nurses who will be curing your illnesses and wiping your ass in your old age.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I listened to the interview with Walt Ruloff, executive producer of this steaming crockumentary, and noticed something that blows me away…
How is it that all these super-genius-smart IDists who plan to demolish the rotten edifice of evolution CANNOT CORRECTLY PRONOUNCE THE NAME “PHARYNGULA” (the name of PZ Myers’ blog and the name of an embryonic development stage in biology)????? Bwahahahahahaha!!
If you moron creationists, IDists, and Nixon-apologist Benny Stein want to hear how to pronounce the name correctly, you may wish to lend an ear to Richard Dawkins in his birthday greeting to PZ Myers, also in my name website link and below.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,703,n,n
September 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
By the way, I know that the pro-IDists, pro-creationists try to do what every conspiracy-theory monger does, which is to whine pitifully that we label nonsense as nonsense, and to shout “conspiracy” instead of answering the questions.
It’s very thin gruel, and it won’t wash with anybody who understands what goes into making science. The very fact that such a sad little conspiracy theory is the best Stein and the producers is the best that they can do shows just how badly ID has failed in its stated goal of actually convincing scientists that magic (they didn’t call it magic, true, but they never demonstrated that it was anything else) is science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 am
You know Ben, I once really respected you, but this is just ridiculous.
First and foremost, you can not establish freedom of religion until you first establish freedom from religion. If American freedoms came from the Christian/Catholic “God”, then the freedoms “it” gave us are in conflict with the first commandment; Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Second, the notion that “god exists” is a conjecture. The notion that “god did it” is a double conjecture. You have a vocabulary, use it.
Third, the double conjecture that “god did it” is not by any means a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding.
Fourth, religious faith is not a substitute for real empirical evidence which can be produced, measured, reproduced under controlled circumstances or compared to previous recordings.
Fifth, the forefathers’ belief in an invisible sky genie does not prove its existence. All it shows is that they were at least as superstitious as you are.
Sixth, as great a man as Martin Luther King was, he was not a scientist.
Ok Ben, let me sum it up for you. The people who say the moon landing was a hoax are crackpots. The people who say astrology can predict the future are crackpots. The people who say the earth is hollow and the sun sets inside it are crackpots. So who the hell are you to say that anyone who claims an invisible sky genie exists or that this invisible sky genie did anything to guide the natural evolution of man without so much as a shred of evidence to support it is anything but a crackpot?
Furthermore, I can come up with a list of at least a dozen other pseudo-sciences that deserve MORE scientific recognition than Intelligent Design does. In alphabetic order: Alchemy, Astrology, ESP, Faith Healing, Homeopathy, Lunar Effect, Parapsychology, Perpetual Motion, Phlogiston Theory, Phrenology, Storks delivering Babies, and Telekinesis.
ALL of these pseudosciences have more evidence to support their nonsensical claims than Intelligent Design does, Ben. So please. Don’t embarrass yourself by claiming that anything any Intelligent Design proponent deserves anything more than our ridicule.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:15 am
Interestingly, the statement that freedom is God-given is itself the radical promotion of an idea contrary to the truth as known by all Calvinist churches and every other Christian denomination that believes in predestination. Luther believed in it, and so did most other Reformation clergy. The Puritans who came over on the Mayflower believed salvation was a gift of God, not freedom, and that they were the Elect. Luther argued constantly that people should accept that God damned infants in the womb, knowing full well they would die before ever having a chance to accept Jesus or not. Etc.
We normally go the other way - how dare you say your particular sky-friend is the source of my freedom? But first of all, existentialists both religious (Kierkegaard) and secular (Sartre) have pointed out that freedom is itself a constant source of anguish. Maybe if there is a God, He wants us to know that it’s all predetermined, so we should no more care about our fellows as they are tossed into the lake of fire to be imaginatively tormented forever by Him and his buddies than we do about the characters in a novel. And it’s also true that saying freedom is God-given is actually respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, Congress should not make any laws based on that. To do so disenfranchises not only atheists and agnostics, but also anyone who is a determinist (perhaps B F Skinner would fit) or a believer in predestination.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:42 am
Gwyn:
It’s an attack movie. If you are boosting this movie, you are part of an attack campaign. Hence, don’t pretend you’re the victim. The people defamed by this project under Ben Stein’s name are the victims.
Moreover, it’s a lying attack movie. That’s been acknowledged above, but the response has been that that doesn’t matter. Why not? If it’s an issue of scientific controversy, I mean? I have been to countless scientific presentations. I assure you that if one person has a theory and a competitor went to their presentation and lied about what they were asking them about and then took their responses and put them out of context in an attack movie (instead of following the normal process that their competitor was following) that no one - no one at all - actually in science, even people completely in their theoretical camp would say they were doing science or science controversy.
They would say, rather, that the person’s own intensity and ambition and driving need to beat other people had unhinged them and pushed them over the line. Note religion’s part in this. It has none. ID or not-ID? Not an issue. Just anti-science behavior.
Now I have a counter to your “why can’t you vote with your feet” question. Why are you people so sociopathic, so psycopathic, so narcissistic as to assume that people you’re trying to victimize and destroy are simply going to lie there without wiggling? Of course they’re not. And frankly, that you are all part of a “Wedge” campaign to destroy science itself within the political boundaries of the United States is no longer up for dispute - you’re convicted out of your own mouths and hands thereby.
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 am
Re the Dawkins “quote” at the “Playground/Big Science Academy” page (’As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”‘): it’s from the Beyond Belief ‘06 sunday session where Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Dawkins
if his articulately barbed way could be more effective if more sensitive.
Dawkins then tells a tongue-in-cheek anecdote of a former editor of “New Scientist” magazine. You can watch this exchange at YouTube, video ID is uYBFqse7tiU (just replace it in the URL or search for “tyson dawkins”).
If Dawkins really told someone to shut up, I’d like to see the source quotation.
September 2nd, 2007 at 6:02 am
ID-supporters - Don´t whine about being pursued. Publish your findings! Put your theories to the test of the scientific method! Im sure all you can prove eventualy will find its way in to the sciense classrooms.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Good grief!! People sure get touchy about this subject. The problem isn’t with intelligent design being taught in our classrooms, the problem is that students are not even allowed to believe it - they are forced to accept the THEORY of evolution. Give our kids the right to think for themselves. I believe in intelligent design, but have no problem with both intelligent design and the theory of evolution being taught in our classrooms. Let our kids hear the options and let them think for themselves.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I have to laugh … several on here pointing to publication in journals as though that is some sort of instant authority. “Peer review” when your peers are all acolytes in the same church (of Darwin) is nothing more than an echo chamber. I can publish thousands of papers in journals reviewed by those who hold the same beliefs that I do. That “proves” nothing about my actual knowledge or expertise - only that I have a lot of free time on my hands.
Darwinist academics like to fancy themselves as intellectually superior, yet all they can do is tap-dance around serious questions and point to self-referential “documentation” that comes from their own echo chambers. Those that follow the church of Darwin seem oblivious to the fact that their “science” relies as much on faith - in the unproven and unseen - as any “religion.”
It’s amusing to see the Defenders of the Faith (of Darwinism) so rattled.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
My response to Atomic Chimp the following:
In the Dover case Behe said that if they were to accept ID then they would also have to accept Astrology. Astrology is a pseudoscience that deals with the super-natural and if he puts ID in the same category, then it is not science
is how can you sleep at night? I could not. This claim is an absolute total lie. Read the transcript. Such statements are why I put little credibility in dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
My response to the following:
In the Dover case Behe said that if they were to accept ID then they would also have to accept Astrology. Astrology is a pseudoscience that deals with the super-natural and if he puts ID in the same category, then it is not science.
is how can you sleep at night? I could not. This claim is an absolute total lie. Read the transcript. Such statements are why I put little credibility in dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Mr Stein,
My hats off to you and having heard you speak numerous times I am sure you will do an excellent job with this effort. A casual reading of the posters prior to me lends further credibility to your argument (as if you needed one). On cannot prove a universal negative ie “there is no God” and sadly the intellectual elite has fallen into this wholesale.
February 2008 will find me in the theatre supporting your efforts.
Much Success,
Bryan
September 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Many of these “replies” well illustrate the semantic (not scientific) basis of the arguments presented.
RELIGION, in its necessarily larger Constitutional context (where tax dollars are involved) must cover ALL religions (theistic and non-theistic) is well stated as ….All physically unverifiable answers to the three classic unanswered philosophical questions of all time:
1) Where did life come from?
2) What is life’s purpose(if any)?
3) What is life’s ultimate destiny?
SCIENCE, again in its all-inclusive terminology can be expressed as: Man’s best efforts to determine the cause-and-effect relationships involved in all observable phenomena to a high level of compelling certainty.
This, in turn, is broken down into sub-catagories:
EMPIRICAL SCIENCE: Explanations that can be physically verified with all variables controlled. With such confirmation possible, even by a skeptic, NO longterm controversy is encountered.
HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE (Historical, Theoretical, Evolutionary) SCIENCE: This is the method applied where such physical confirmation is not yet(?)possible. Here “deductive” explanations are mentally determined using available observations, selected axioms and the rules of logic. H-D determinations have long been recognized (and accepted) as being subject to years, even centuries, of disagreement or controversy.
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE: As the “Queen of Science” is a valuable tool in all “methods” of science. In EMPIRICAL science mathematical relationships can be extended to help explain other issues still being examined. In H-D science, mathematical analysis serves to focus attention to those few areas showing the greater possibilities (probabilities above near zero).
As the only method universally taught in introductory science classrooms, EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is the DEFAULT meaning understood when the term “science” is used. As H-D science explanations are carelessly presented to the public simply as “science” — irresponsibly failing to share with their readers the the non-default (less rigorous) H-D science criteria actually applied — unnecessary (and undesirable) controversy is sure to follow.
If all non-physically tested conclusions were clearly identified as (non-default) H-D science, rather than implying default (Empirical) science, over 90% of ALL current evolutionary controversy would quickly disappear.
Comments from others would be appreciated.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Faidros Says:
ID-supporters - Don´t whine about being pursued. Publish your findings! Put your theories to the test of the scientific method!
My responce is good idea but….
I am doing a book on ID so have studied it for some time. The amount of research ID people have done is actually impressive, given the fact that (a) they can’t get funding for it,(we have tried over and over) (b) they could lose their job for it, (hundreds have) (c) most journals will not publish it even if well done, (they try over and over and end up only collecting rejection letters) (d) if they do publish the journal editor will face howls of protest and have to publish retractions as has happened over and over, and (e) they could actually get shunned by their friends (both YEC or TE). And yet hundreds of Darwin Fundamentalists are publishing arguments against it, believing like ID is actually a threat to something or another.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Thank you Ben Stein!!! Good luck with this film, it is long overdue, as is evidenced by the remarks written by viewers of this site.
Why are people so afraid to explore the possibility of God?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
BigDogg Said, “I have to laugh … several on here pointing to publication in journals as though that is some sort of instant authority…..Darwinist academics like to fancy themselves as intellectually superior…”
Can’t you see how flawed your comments are. If Science didn’t have standard to keep out the junk science then everything and anything would be given the same respect no matter how ridiculous it is. Most intelligent people would agree its a good idea to have these standards, but when some find their ideas have been rejected since they don’t meet these standards, they feel it can’t be them who are at fault, its Big Brother trying to control them.
Please save yourself some time and look a little closer at who your promoting. In my case, the presenting of peer reviewed papers is just because I’m trying to stick to the normal way people back their points. Instead of just blowing hot air, we used material from reputable sources to back our words. If that doesn’t do anything for you, then I recommend you just read the transcript of the dover case. I think Behe and his crew make a good enough case against themselves and IDs validity (or lack of) as a science! It doesn’t get any better than that. Its like a kid going for his drivers test consciously steers the car into on coming traffic causing an accident. Then when they refuse him a license, he kicks his feet and screams ‘no fair!”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
http://forums.randi.org/dovertrial/decision.pdf
Its pretty sad when you try to promote a religious movement in the disguise of scientific lingo.
If you look back a few post you’ll see my mentioning of a young grad student who schooled Behe. If he (and ID) is so correct and what he’s doing is science, then why hasn’t he even tried to respond to her. I am well aware myself of why, because she is correct and there is no possible response he could have other than admitting he was wrong. It doesn’t take just paper to show ID is wrong sometimes a smart young scientists out there can do it just by talking about the work she does and show how easily available this information should have been for any good scientist!
September 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I did not read all of 993 blog entries, but I did read how close minded evols are. Let me respond to pathetics and ask the exact same question concerning Macro-evolution.
1) Give a comprehensive statement about what evolution is. What does it mean?
2) What predictions does evolutionary theory make? Such as an equal amount of anti-matter (very little) or transitional forms (none! there should be billions and billions).
3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence? Very good question for Macroevolution
4) What recent discoveries have evolutionist researchers made? Everytime they find new evidence, it seems to contradict the very theory and so they have to change it again and again and again…
5) What features of evolutionary theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change evolution theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change? No offense, but this is a stupid question because this does not allow for the falsification of an hypothesis.
6) How does evolution explain the evidence produced by conventional science? So far not very good.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Science is based on the philosophical assumption that all truth is repeatable and observable. (I think (and can see repetition) therefore I am). Therefore you must engage in the philosophy of science first, if you are to show that science proves anything. Those that believe in God have an answer for where the repeatable, observable, world came from: Creation implies a creator, design implies a designer, with the more difficult the design the more intelligent the designer. People who do not believe in God do not have an answer for how things came into being except through science (observable things (a circular argument)). The scientific method itself is based on a world view that assumes a creator and a designer. We observe that it takes a human veterinarian (something smarter) to heal a dog. Wouldn’t it be obvious that it takes something beyond this world and human thought to design human thought? Unless you don’t think that your thoughts are that great?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Donna J, you obviously do not understand the issue at hand. Let kid see the option to make their own choice is like saying teach astrology, along side of astronomy or teach alien colonization of earth with world history. ID has no evidence to back it up so its not science. If you wanted to teach it in a religious study or philosophy class that might be appropriate but if it can’t fulfill the minimal requirements to even be considered science, then its not science and should keep out of the classes.
If ID is allowed into the science then all others non-sciences will have to be accepted. Remember,in the Dover trial Behe had to concede that if intelligent design was accepted as science, one must also accept astrology.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I know Ben Stein - yes, from the media but MORE from his commentary on CBS Sunday Morning. I know I am way too young at 32 too watch, but I watch Ben’s every move.
As a moderate Christian with a background in biological science, I am appalled by the Scientific Left Wing and their closed-minded thought.
Just 20 years ago we were the closed-minded fools. My, my look how noting’s changed!
Good luck with this,
Your Gentile/Christian Support
September 4th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Dear Mr Stein: All the multiwords, larger than life education and plain common sense will not prevail over the truth. I laud your endeavor and am justified in my thinking that there are still crusaders among us. Hold fast to what you believe; it is the only thing that will save you from what the “others” must suffer. Don’t be angry with their caustic comments; they are unimportant and we should feel compassion for them as Christ would. God Bless You, Ben Stein
September 4th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Paul Dias, Do you think by turning the questions around on evolutionists that you’d have get us in a pickle?! Sorry to say that those questions wouldn’t be asked if evolutionary sciences didn’t already have an answer for them. I can’t believe you couldn’t figure that out. Well, I’m heading home and have a long drive. If I feel up to it I might post an answer later tonight or maybe tomorrow. I can’t believe you’re even asking. If anyone else feels up to it before I get back, just jump in. For now, again for the millionth time:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This should answer all your question ad-nauseam! When I get a chance I’ll post some direct replies and examples concerning your question. If you take the time to follow up on what I post Paul Dias, you’ll find that this thing called evolution you seem to have so much doubt for, has more evidence for it than you can shake a stick at!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I take it then that I am the only commenter here who has ever published anything dealing with the mechanism of organic evolution? After all, it is only the mechanism that has ever been in question. The Darwinian model had absolutely nothing to do with it. Unlike the vast majority here I use my real name. I have no use for anonymous authors. Imagine, if you can, a scientific literature with anonymous authors.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“A past evolution is udeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Jenny, Obviously you haven’t read the transcript either so let me point it out better for everyone who doubts it.
——————————————————–
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18), PM Session, Part 1
(1:25 p.m., convene.)
(Direct examination of Dr. Michael J. Behe)
….
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
….
——————————————————-
That is directly from the transcript!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I applaud Ben Stein for hosting this timely documentary!
The following URL is quite interesting: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/debate2.htm
It talks about a best kept secret among evolutionists that they typically lose debates to credible creation scientists like Dr. Gish and therefore prefer not to participate in debates.
How is this possible? The article implies that creation scientists provide disinformation and that evolution is too complex to talk about in a reasonable period of time; but is this really true?
If creation science is not any more credible than “flat earth” theory — as we are told to believe — then how in the world can creation scientists like Gish typically always win debates? And if evolution really happened, then it should be easy to explain how it occurred in a reasonable period of time (like in a debate). The truth is that evolution is a bogus theory and the only reason why it is still taught is because it is the cornerstone of atheism. This is why people like Richard Dawkins and Eugene Scott and others are in such an uproar because they know their theory is totally false and the dike is beginning to burst as more and more people realize the absurdity of this theory.
It is also noteworthy that Richard Dawkins himself also states he will not debate creationists as has been his policy for many years; however, he WILL debate preachers like Ted Haggard as he knows they lack scientific knowledge as someone like Gish; basically Dawkins and others like him are total frauds in this area; their approach to keeping evolution alive to suppress all credible opposing viewpoints.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Jenny said this: “is how can you sleep at night? I could not. This claim is an absolute total lie. Read the transcript. Such statements are why I put little credibility in dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists.”
In response to Atomic Chimp’s:
“In the Dover case Behe said that if they were to accept ID then they would also have to accept Astrology. Astrology is a pseudoscience that deals with the super-natural and if he puts ID in the same category, then it is not science.”
Well I have read the transcript from the Dover case and here is what it says:
MR. ROTHSCHILD Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
PROFESSOR BEHE Answer: Yes, that’s correct.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Paul Dias said:
“I did not read all of 993 blog entries, but I did read how close minded evols are. Let me respond to pathetics and ask the exact same question concerning Macro-evolution.
1) Give a comprehensive statement about what evolution is. What does it mean?”
Why do you creationists keep on asking such stupid questions? Did you never go to science class? Have you never even tried to read a non-creationist text on evolution? And what the hell are you trying to prove? It’s not like evolution is very hard to define.
The strictest definition of biological evolution would be this: Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles over time. That’s it. That’s all.
“2) What predictions does evolutionary theory make? Such as an equal amount of anti-matter (very little) or transitional forms (none! there should be billions and billions).”
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with anti-matter. Why do you bring that up?
Also, the transitional fossil argument is very old, and has been thoroughly, THOROUGHLY debunked. There are plenty of transitional fossils. The problem is that every time one is found that fills a gap, the creationist/IDers simply point to the two new gaps and say “Fill that. Oh, you can’t? Then evolution is false.”
Also, why are you trying to imply that there are no transitional fossils? Why wouldn’t there be any transitional fossils is ID/creationism is true? Would God/Somebody/Fairies/Magical Space Clowns/Aliens be hiding them all. You have to admit, even IF intelligent design was true, it wouldn’t forbid any fossils.
“3) What principles and standards are used to evaluate evidence? Very good question for Macroevolution”
The scientific method, of course. Why is this a “good question” for macroevolution? Are you going to wave away and pretend that there isn’t any evidence for it?
“4) What recent discoveries have evolutionist researchers made? Everytime they find new evidence, it seems to contradict the very theory and so they have to change it again and again and again…”
There are so many fallacies here it is hard to know where to start. First off, it’s very ironic that you deride evolutionary theory because it’s changed over the years; THAT’S WHAT SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO DO. When you get new evidence, you change your conclusions. Even more ironically, this is the opposite of creationism/ID. They hold the same conclusions no matter the evidence says.
With regards to recent discoveries, please, do some of your own research. I’m tired of creationists/IDers constantly asking everyone to put all the evidence for evolution in front of them on a plate, as if the burden of proof isn’t on them in the first place.
“5) What features of evolutionary theory are subject to modification? What kind of observation, if it were seen, would change evolution theory? What criteria is there for accepting a change? No offense, but this is a stupid question because this does not allow for the falsification of an hypothesis.”
All of evolutionary theory is subject to modification, as long is there is evidence and observations to support it. And the question about what would falsify evolution is stupid. All it would take is some piece of evidence that would defy the theory. Why don’t creationists/IDers try an do this, instead of trying to attack evidence that has already been proven?
“6) How does evolution explain the evidence produced by conventional science? So far not very good.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The reason that evolutionary theory has thrived for so long is because IT HASN’T been proven false yet. And there is nothing in “conventional science” (which, btw, evolution IS conventional) that contradicts evolutionary theory.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I bet I could tell you that they have scientific data, that our cosmo (universe) was designed, and it was designed for human life. That our cosmos is too fine tuned just to happen by chance or by some big bang. But many will continue to still deny and ignore, what these scientists have to say. I guess they don’t know what they are talking about either. (to the ToE ppl)But you do, right? Because you say Darwinism evolution is true, so therefore it must be.
Wonder why this SCIENTIFIC DATA isn’t known to the public? Is this called suppression of certain scientific data that doesn’t agree with Darwinism evolution? Is this why there is a need for academic freedom in the Big Science World? Why is it that this new research cannot be pursued? Because of what it may infer?
There is so much scientific data that is suppressed, that the public, America and the world continues to be deceived, just because certain ppl make it THEIR law to keep the ideas such as big bang, particles-to-people evolution a fact, when it isn’t.
Please watch:
(Real Player needed to view)
http://www.uctv.tv/library-popup.asp?showID=8560
Cosmology is a science, and it proves that the universe was designed, and not from a big bang. I’ll say again, certain scientific data is NOT ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED, IT IS CENSORED, and IT IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC!!!
Academic Suppression EQUALS World in NEED of Academic FREEDOM!
~M
PS - What comes around, goes around. And the Darwinism world will have its day. Do they really think that they can keep on deceiving the public? Everyday, whether one or more - are turning their back on your idea of the origin of life, and finding the truth. And they call ppl who believe in religion fanatics? It’s the other way around.
Darwinism isn’t just a religion, it’s a cult.
I still recommend this: A DVD entitled Universe-the Cosmology Quest at http://www.universe-film.com/index.php
September 4th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
To Paul Dias #1001
This is what infuriates evolutionary biologists… which obviously is what you are attempting to do by asking the same questions that scientists ask of ID. Do you have any understanding of the 150 years of stunning research in evolution? Evidently not. The same scientific principles and standards that keep you alive and make your life easier are the same ones that support evolution. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not true.
In the Dover trial both sides asked the judge to decide if intelligent design was science or religion. Both sides gave it their best shot and the overwhelming evidence led to the decision that ID is religion.
Nobody is afraid of God but he belongs in church and the home and science for the progression of society belongs in the classroom and laboratory
September 4th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
This has got to be the best line here:
“Do you have any understanding of the 150 years of stunning research in evolution?”
My apologies, not making ridicule of the poster, just the line itself.
A 150 years of stunning evidence? Where? LOL…too funny.
MACRO-evolution is not a fact period, let alone to support particles-to-people evolution, nor does it support the animal kingdom. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS! That’s why punctuated equilibrium was invented.
Again, KUDOS To Mr. Ben Stein. I’m all for academic freedom and freedom of inquiry. (give me five Mr. Stein)
September 4th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
I fear this movie is going to be about, by and large, self-made martyrs: those who chose to cheat (like Sternberg) or those who felt entitlement (like Gonzalez, though it may have been blown out of proportion by DI). Based on the professed theme of the movie and the situations they are choosing to highlight, it’s going to be an extraordinarily slanted piece by necessity. Will Sternberg’s underhanded “special peer review” process to sneak in Meyer’s awful review paper into the journal under his editorship so that the Discovery Institute can claim “Intelligent Design has a paper published in a respected journal” be mentioned?
I’m highly disappointed to see the comments section here replete with the same bunkum creationist arguments that were used four decades ago and beforehand, right down to the utterly amazing “second law of thermodynamics proof” that, if the proof worked as claimed, would also preclude an acorn from becoming an oak tree.
I can’t remember who asked about bacteria, but yes, there are multicellular bacteria. Myxobacteria (http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~zdenap/Multi/myxobact.jpg) forms multicellular creatures, as do some cyanobacteria, which form colonies that differentiate into cells that form spores, or that fix nitrogen. Eukaryotes rule the roost, though.
As to fixating on the beginning of life that “evolution cannot explain”, the reason is simply this: the last common ancestor of all *current* life is too old for us to tell. More life that diverged from the rest of the bush of life before that point would let us get closer to an answer, but we’ve already gone as far back as we can with the life forms we’ve discovered. Other branches from before bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes have died out. We may find one, but I’m not all that hopeful, apart from some current study into some of the “big, sloppy” viruses (most viruses are very streamlined) like Mimivirus.
It’s like trying to trace your ancestry from before written records.
I would hope that intelligent design advocates would set up their own laboratory facilities. There are string theory deniers and Big Bang deniers and general relativity deniers that still have their own homes, so to speak (Smolin has the Perimeter Institute, Arp has the Max-Planck, van Flandern has Metaresearch), and given the interest in intelligent design from some quarters, protestation of lack of funds is hardly believable.
With all the fixation on fossils, it’s easy to gloss over the fact that genetics has shown that the tree (or bush) of life is very close to the tree of life that was drawn by naturalists. Full genome sequencing is a recent and expensive phenomenon, and it, too, shows the same relationships between creatures.
Fossils tell us of cousins and branches that died out and that are not around for us to do many the studies that so definitively nail down relationships, so forensic and anatomical techniques must be used. Popular literature will spare you the details, but the details are important. “Look how similar marsupial wolf (thylacine) and placental wolf (what we know as wolves) bones are” is particularly convincing… until you start actually comparing the anatomy to other marsupials such as kangaroos. It may be a snoozefest, but yes, it’s important to compare a wolf to a thylacine (http://fdisk.net/~welsberr/images/cgh/KvD_Padian_s088.pdf) and a thylacine to a kangaroo (http://fdisk.net/~welsberr/images/cgh/KvD_Padian_s093.pdf) and note the difference in para-occipital process and ear bulla in the first case and the similarity in the second. Zzzzz… wha? It’s details like that which are important, though, because the general public doesn’t really know what to look for (ear bulla?), and is trusting that someone’s watching out for them.
The reaction against evolutionary theory is bizarre, even if I can conjecture where some of the worries come from. It’s useful and productive in our understanding of how biological systems work. To understand how they change and have changed really helps out other fields in biology. Common descent, for example, lets us apply genetic knowledge from one creature to others, such as where to locate the equivalent gene. One such field of application is Comparative Genomics. Regardless of the claims of separately-created “kinds”, nature operates as though common descent is true, so the challenge for any competing hypothesis is to explain why this is the case.
Proteins are a lot more resilient than the public perception gives them credit for, as well. DNA mutation conjures up this image where touching any DNA ‘letter’ causes the whole thing to go kaboom, but that’s not the case most of the time (and when it happens, the children may or may not survive). Protein shapes are mostly dictated by how much each amino acid loves or hates water, and because of the way the genetic alphabet works, mutations usually don’t change that water-loving a whole ton. Many enzymes are a huge mess in the back and a small spot for processing in the front, so they’re even harder to flub up. Seven stepwise changes, all functional, gets you from glucocorticoid-processing to cortisol (stress hormone) processing.
I could go on about the expectations of time scales (”produce in your lab in a year what would take nature 150 million or you’re wrong!”), but I mostly just want to stress the positives. It’s in use because it works. No grand conspiracy, just what pops out of nature when we go looking, and *that* is in the grand tradition of Galileo and Newton.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:32 am
I don’t buy Intelligent Design just yet, but TRUE Intelligent Design does raise some interesting ideas that should be explored further. However, what people are trying to back-door into schools is NOT Intellignet Design–it is CREATIONISM, pure and simple.
Various fundamentalist conservative groups have stolen the term “Intelligent Design” and are using it to disguise their religious agenda as a scientific theory. What Answers In Genesis, the Institute for Creation Science and people like Kirk Cameron are calling “Intelligent Design” is nothing of the sort.
And for the record, a true Intelligent Design hypothesis does not oppose, challenge, undermine or otherwise supplant Evolution in any way, so when so-called ID supporters start pushing ID in school as an “alternative” to evolution, or use ID sounding arguments to refute evolution, then it’s clear that what they really are pushing is Creationism.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:48 am
To John A. Davison: I have also published many articles in peer reviewed science journals dealing with the mechanisms of organic evolution. The common claim that Darwin Skeptics do not publish is simply in this area is also wrong.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Marilyn Oakley, you said:
1) “Because you say Darwinism evolution is true, so therefore it must be.”
2) “Wonder why this SCIENTIFIC DATA isn’t known to the public?”
3) “…ppl make it THEIR law to keep the ideas such as big bang, particles-to-people evolution a fact, when it isn’t.”
4) “Cosmology is a science, and it proves that the universe was designed, ”
5) “they call ppl who believe in religion fanatics? ”
6) “It’s the other way around. Darwinism isn’t just a religion, it’s a cult.”
7) “Why is it that this new research cannot be pursued?”
Ok… Here we go!
1) No it’s because the evidence leads to the conclusion that it is true. If you an show a better hypothesis that explains all of the evidence found so far please do.
2) You are incorrect. The data is available, but you have to do the foot work to get all of it. Its not the most interesting material so it doesn’t get the media attention it should. The only data that is not within’ reach of the public is the results from some of the most current work. There are many careers who’s work doesn’t get to the public ear quickly too. This is not from holding it back, its again due to lack of public interest. If you want to see the data, take the time to find it and read it! You might see things much differently when you see how much there really is!
3) Again, its not the ppl, its the facts. When an overwhelming amount of evidence points to evolution, you can’t avoid recognizing what the best conclusion is! Again, do as I mentioned in #2. IF you still feel it incorrect, please present a hypothesis and with an equal amount of evidence that and equally explains the things we discovered so far.
Remember, if you hypothesis leave a lot of what has been discovered unaccounted for, no matter how good it might seem to explain other things, its a bad hypothesis. It need to explain all no just a few tidbits.
4) I agree Cosmology is a science, I am very familiar with it but it doesn’t prove the universe was designed. As Einstein mentioned, don’t assume the obvious is correct. I can only guess you are speaking of the fine-tuned universe concept. Well, just because it is tune for us to exist doesn’t mean that it was made for us. If the universe had formed in different ways, we can not conclude that it would not be open for other kinds of lfe to spring from it. We’ve witness that here on earth. There are many forms of life living in conditions that we previously thought no life ever could exist in. Super hot, super cold… fish with antifreeze in thier blood… bacteria that literally eat rock in the dark cold depths of the earth…. check out Extremeophiles. So we cannot conclude that we are nothing more than the life that sprouted from this universe that ‘evolved to exploit what it has to offer!
5) I can’t speak for others but I consider people who believe are religious but I see those who let religion blind them into believing in the opposite of what the facts say are delusional! I leave fanatical for even the really extremes of religion!
6) The definition of Cult is “Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.” Since Darwinian theories are always under scrutiny by even it supporters (just as everything theory is) It doesn’t apply. Science promote the questioning, review and revision of its knowledge and hypothesis even after they’ve been accepted as the correct theory. I’d more likely say the Scientific method might be considered cultish only in the fact that it has proven itself the most reliable method of learning and discovering in the history of man. Due to that I find myself dedicated to being a rationalist and applying the methods proven by science. In the same breath I must say, that includes the constant rechecking of all conclusions as mentioned before. That’s one of the great things about science, it has a built in error checking system!
7) It can be pursued; the reason I can guess why what you might be interested in is not being pursued is because it has proven to be a fruitless and foolish direction. If a hypothesis doesn’t offer any new knowledge to science its tossed aside. That’s why the god hypothesis doesn’t work in science. It begins and end in the same place. God and religion can offer more in the philosophies but should not be applied to the sciences.
Ok, enough for now!
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
When I graduated from the University of Wisconsin - Madison, I was an evolutionist. Since then I have learned that I was hoodwinked by teachers and textbooks which were hoodwinked themselves. A paradigm shift is possible. As is usually the case, there is another way to look at the same evidence. In the case of creation vs. evolution, both views are equally religious and equally scientific. Dogmatism and intolerance requires one of looking at things. If the “evidence for evolution is overwhelming” as they claim, what are they afraid of? As the Regents of the University of Wisconsin - Madison wrote many years ago, it is through the “sifting and winnowing” of contrary ideas that the truth shall be found.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I am happy to see men like Ben Stein stand up for the right. If all of science would be given its way in all fairness, let them prove that there is no God and they will find the Truth if they look for Him in earnest. It has always happened as such thusfar. Stay with it Ben and may God bless you real good!!
September 5th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Big science, Big oil, big pharma,…how is it you went from being an intellectual to a conspiracy theorist?
Ben, I wish you would have applied the same intellectual rigor you do towards finance to this subject. ID is not taught in a science class because it is not falsifiable, and makes no scientific predictions…in other words, it is NOT SCIENCE. If you would like to teach this in a religious studies class or some sort of philosophy, that is fine…but it doesn’t belong in a science classroom, and for you to claim otherwise is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. Or, maybe you just haven’t learned enough about science to understand this yet.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:22 am
[…] for a more objective film), Randy Olson has shared his concerns on Pharyngula, and people have been laying into Stein on his first blog post about the movie. Here we go again, folks. Another big battle is […]
September 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Science sometimes gets it wrong.
Prof. Behe gives some interesting information on the early days of the big bang theory.
Scientists had taken the polar opposite stance to the biblical notion of creation. Matter could not be created or destroyed. Fact. Therefore the universe was perpetual
with no beginning. Fact.
As evidence for the big bang mounted, many people including many scientists, thought that it had
philosophical and even theological implications that they didn’t like. Some thought it contradicted the very foundations of science.
Scientists need to know their world will not collapse.
This has the potential to be the most exciting development ever to blow the dust from the fossilized darwinian books.
Think of all the possible funding for such an incredible concept. Forget SETI or a mission to Mars for a bag of old rocks - ID deserves attention!
September 5th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Ben,
I’ve always thought you were a smart guy, especially with politics and economics. However, I underestimated you. I didn’t realize that in addition to all of that, you are also smarter (without the benefit of a formal science education) than every living biologist on earth.
You have proven that following the scientific method is rather unimportant and can easily be replaced with rampant paranoia and unsubstantiated charges of suppression of knowledge and all the other tactics Judge Jones (the conservative judge of the Dover trial) referred to as “Breathtaking Inanity”. Anyone interested in this issue should take a quick look at the Dover decision, as well as ID proponant Michael Behe’s testimony (key points: admitting ID and astrology are equally scientific; admitting he doesn’t read any rebuttals printed against his claims).
One final thought. If evolution and keeping ID out of school is such a conspiracy, why are the scientists who believe in God not split on the issue? Why do they all still believe in evolution and feel that ID is unscientific? Why have 3 recent Popes declared the same thing?
Unless you are in fact claiming that you are more educated than every working scientist*, I would suggest you let them worry about this and you stick to what you do. Think of how you would react if I made a movie about how it was a right wing conspiracy to keep evolution out Economics classes.
*(I admit this is a slight hyperbole, I believe the polls show only 99.85% or so of the scientists in the US believe in evolution; not a full 100%. I suspect you’ll take that .15% and run with it)
September 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
One doesn’t have to be religious to be skeptical that “natural selection” might somehow organize a bunch of genetic accidents into rationally interacting biological systems. RM&NS is the only materialistic esplanation offered for evolution, the onlly explanation that doesn’t include form of intelligent, purposeful response. And if intelligence of any form in involved, life is intelligently designed. Because some materialists are paranoid about religiou won’t change those facts.
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
September 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Jacob Evilsizor
If you don’t believe in a designer, what empirical evidence do you have that life spontaneously created itself? If we cannot even create the basic components of life in a highly controlled laboratory setting after 50 years, why would you credit an uncaused, unmotivated, unintelligent, and unnecessary process for doing it on a universal scale? How is this accident a logical assertion explaining the beginnings of life and existence?
Everything is classified as designed, except for the Designer, who is eternal. The inability to determine (and/or provide empirical evidence of) the specific origin of the design does not by default eliminate the need for a designer. I think what you are implying, and what creationists have supplied answers to over and over again to, is the question of apparent design in snowflakes. Snowflakes do not show intricate design based on their shapes (elegant symmetry) because no new information is needed in order for these shapes to coalesce. The water molecules that they are formed from already contain the information necessary for this process to take place. When water solidifies it naturally crystallizes into a hexagonal structure. “However, the exact shape of the snowflake is determined by the temperature and humidity at which it forms…Snowflakes can come in many different forms, including columns, needles, and plates (with and without “dendrites” - the “arms” of some snowflakes). These different forms arise out of different temperatures and water saturation - among other conditions (Wikipedia).” This is an example of design by association, because the water molecules are designed such that they will react in a predictable way when subjected to certain stimuli, giving the appearance of self-design ex nihilo.
So everything is designed? By your statement it is. A rock is design, a atom is designed. Sorry that is not science, thats metaphysics. Seems you are ignorant to what is science and what is not science. May I recomend rereading the post that you said I infrengend.
“The frame of reference you speak of is irrelevant because it is within the constructs of space and time (or space-time), which God is outside of because He created it. Here is a good article explaining the concept:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/gospel.asp”
If it outside then there is no frame of reference. Hence not science! Especially since science deals with the naturalistic world. Supernatural is not scientific. Sorry your concept is fallace.
“The designer, or Designer, is made known to us in a historical account called the Bible; which by the way is supported on many levels archeologically. You’re welcome not to believe this, but that does not make it any less true.”
Again this is Religion not science. Nor is it history. Do you really consider the bible accurate history? Your belief in the irrelency of the bible is constitute to faith not Epistemology but assumptions.
“Now, as for the shopping list of scientific fields that you provided, which demonstrates only your impressive ability to copy-and-paste, you are using a tactic that is known as elephant hurling. Your basic premise is that you want empirical evidence that God created everything, which is not possible because no one alive was there to witness this event, except for God Himself; which is why we rely on His eye-witness account (i.e. the Bible). The burden of proof is on you to provide empirical evidence that God did not create everything like He said He did, because you are working against the observable, logical inference that the universe absolutely requires a designer. Please read my previous post #741 for better insight into why this is.”
What eye-witnes account. The bible is hear say. There are no
“Lastly, I know that you enjoy copying-and-pasting so very much, but when you copy an original author’s work in its entirety and try to pass it off as your own intellectual prowess, you are simply committing plagiarism my friend.
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/p/EvolutionRelig.htm
Once again, I will ask that you actually learn to think critically and stop copying nonsense from anti-creationist websites. One might wonder how many of your other posts contain such copyright infringement…”
Hello its called pharophrasing. And I did itend to cite it. Do you even know what copywrite is?
“And on a side-note: since you seem to enjoy berating people by proclaiming that they are “ignorant” over and over again, you might want to learn how to spell correctly before you go excoriating people with your hypocritical, grammatical mish-mash of utter nonsense. Of course, all the parts that you copy-and-paste are all spelled perfectly, so no complaints there. ”
Nice ad homin, still ignorant to the argument and attacking the author. Yea that’s real moral and ethical.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
When a “Baptist” University pulls the plug on Evolutionary Informatics Lab because of its links to intelligent design proves the antagonism to ID. The Baylor University administration shut down Prof. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab because the lab’s research was perceived as linked to intelligent design (ID).
Robert J. Marks II, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, had hoped that a late-August compromise would save his lab, but the University withdrew from the previous offer. While President Lilley was not at the meeting, an insider senses his hand in the affair, noting that Lilley was the only person with the authority to overturn what the Provost, who was at the meeting, agreed to.
On June 1, 2007, the lab went online, amid fanfare Marks changed the URL on the Baylor serve.
In a podcast interview with Prof. Marks concerning the new lab Marks revealed that there were some connections between his research at the lab and ID. Essentially, the lab was doing something similar to biochemist Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution, attempting to determine the limits of what natural selection (survival of the fittest) can do, in creating new machinery inside the living cell, and new species.
Most evolutionary biologists are Darwinists - that is, they believe along with Darwin that natural selection is a creative force that can bring forth everything from the life cycle of the butterfly to the flight-adapted body plan of a bird by natural selection acting on random mutations. By contrast, intelligent design advocates controversially argue that some design must be built in to nature because such a chance origin of these processes is inexplicable according to the laws governing probability. Sources close to the scene suspect that the July podcast doomed the lab by attracting hostility from Darwinists.
A week later, Benjamin Kelley, the dean of engineering at Baylor, informed Marks and others in an email that he had to remove the Evolutionary Informatics Lab website. As justification, Kelley cited anonymous complaints linking the lab to intelligent design. So Kelley had discovered an evolutionary informatics lab that bid fair to cast doubt on Darwin!
But why was that a scandal? Why should a Baptist institution care, one wonders, if Darwin goes the way of Marx and Freud?
A little background helps: Baylor - a Baptist school in Texas - has had vaulting ambitions in recent years to be the Protestant Notre Dame - an intellectually rigorous Protestant Christian school. However, these may not be propitious times for such an ambition. As intellectual rigor hardens into rigor mortis, thought control replaces exploration. One does not damage materialist icons like Darwin, and expect to be welcomed into the increasingly narrow fold.
Evolutionary informatics studies how evolving systems incorporate, transform, and export information. The Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory explores the conceptual foundations, mathematical development, and empirical application of evolutionary informatics. The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.
Kelley did not, however, wait for the meeting to scrub any references at Baylor to design in the universe. He went into Marks’s Baylor Web space and removed all references to the Evolutionary Informatics Lab without his consent.
The meeting, attended by Baylor counsel Charkes Beckenhauer and provost Randall O’Brien, along with Marks and his lawyer John Gilmore seemed to go off well. The story was, Baylor only wanted the site to make clear that marks’s lab was not a Baylor initiative. That included a disclaimer and the removal of any items that could be construed as support from Baylor.
Marks - an esteemed and gifted professor - presumably realized that Baylor wanted nothing to do with evolutionary informatics if it led to doubts about Darwin. This is a big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID. Robert Marks is a world-class expert in the field of evolutionary computing, and yet the Baylor administration, without any consideration of the actual content of Marks’s work at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, decided to shut it down. A typical “Christian” university like Baylor battens off the wealth of Christians who can afford college for their kids, on the understanding that it brokers the relationship between Christians and an increasingly hostile secular elite - an elite that often displays a general contempt for traditional religious freedoms.
The harsh reality from which the institution protects its dumb sheeplike students is - a harsh UNreality. The threat posed by an intellectually rigorous inquiry into intelligent design is clear The defenders of such institutions see themselves as avoiding unsavoury people and ideas that would bring their beloved institution into disrepute. In reality, if evolutionary informatics that is not dedicated to upholding Darwin is going to get done, it won’t get done at any place like Baylor.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Well, for all of you saying that ID is not a science and that evolution is the only way to go, I have a few words for you. What I believe you’re trying to tell me is that because of a random series of extreme coincidences, here we are. I find that extremely difficult to believe. To quote my pastor, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.” I’ve even heard other people who say close to the same thing, but instead of it being, “in God” at the end, it’s just “in a Creator.” A very open ended statement if you ask me. It doesn’t say that it has to be the Judeo/Christian God, it could be any religion you want. I’ve even said this to my Biology professor during a lecture on evolution, and she told me that I was an idiot for believing that there is a creator and that I should leave her class. And that was even more evidence that believing in God being the Creator of the earth and everything on it is being persecuted in our public colleges. Nowadays pretty much the only place where someone won’t be persecuted for believing in ID is in a private religious school, and their in short supply.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Let’s set the scenario. The times have changed, and it is the new improved future when the requirement of evidence for “doing science” and convicting criminals has at last been overturned. ID thus reigns supreme, and the evidence of relatedness means nothing any more.
Now DNA means nothing in the courts. Why should it? God may very well have intervened to make a person’s DNA fit with the DNA retrieved from the crime scene, or God may have changed the DNA from the crime scene to fit one’s DNA. Are you trying to tell me that God couldn’t do this? That’s exactly what IDists tell the “Darwinists” when the latter point to DNA evidence that agrees with non-teleological evolutionary predictions.
The Bulgarian nurses are sent back to Lybia to be killed. After all, it required phylogenetic evidence to show that they didn’t infect the Lybian children with HIV. And the IDists tell us that God intervenes in evolutionary processes, hence such evidence is worthless, now that ID is no longer “censored” by gov’t and educational institutions.
Guys are happier now, because mere DNA evidence indicates nothing to the courts. After all, if apparent DNA relatedness doesn’t show that we’re related (by known mechanisms, not God’s magic) to chimpanzees, why should DNA relatedness tell us anything about paternity? God might have intervened in evolution, and who can tell God that he can’t design in a way that makes it appear that the baby is related to one who is not the father?
And I am much happier, now that the computers which disappeared out of the warehouse and appeared in my basement cannot be traced either by serial number, nor to me. Good grief, do you really think that God couldn’t have changed the serial numbers, or, even if God didn’t do that, that God couldn’t have rewarded me with the gift of all of those computers? You don’t know that they’re either the same computers or that I actually took the computers, since God might have intervened. After all, isn’t this the sort of scientific explanation that is being “censored” by the evilutionists?
But I cheated a bit on that last one. How? Because a burglary has all of the marks of design. That is to say, it is not irrational to say that God, the Designer, aliens, or leprachauns might have picked the locks, jammed the burglar alarms, and moved the computers from one place to another. There is no good evidence for it, which means that in the ancient and dark past when evidence was required, nobody would believe me that God or space aliens put the computers in my basement. Nevertheless, it isn’t irrational to say that something that is designed, like a burglary, could have been done by a hypothetical rational agent like God or space aliens.
Biology is different, and was recognized as different at least as far back as Aristotle. Biology was physis to the ancient Greeks, while machines were made by techne. This is why machines are made rationally, with straight lines, foresight, teleology, and according to the numbers, while plants and animals are quite something else, that is, “physis” or nature. Plants and animals do not have a purpose as such, nor are they at all designed as humans would design them, with “poor designs”, and by adapting rather unlikely organs to serve new functions, such as taking legs and making wings out of them. There is nothing rational to the descent of the testicles during mammalian development (which leaves weak spots in the abdominal walls as well), nor about the blood vessels being put in front of the retinas of vertebrates (our foveas, and birds’ pecters are work-around solutions). Things evolve, they do not suddenly rearrange as a designer would be wont to do.
Think about it: three different types of vertebrates evolved wings, and none of the earlier wings were used in order to make the later wings, nor were any designed from scratch. Now the best designs would be from first principles, but humans might very well take wings from one example and adapt them to fit another purpose (as indeed the Wright brothers did). What a sensible designer would never do would be to take legs and change them in order to make wings out of them. It’s just a ridiculous way of designing wings.
Pterosaurs had the first known vertebrate wings. From what were they “designed”? Thecodont legs. What would evolution predict that pterosaur legs evolved from? Thecodont legs.
Birds were next to evolve wings. Did the designer design their wings from first principles, or adapt pterosaur wings to work for birds? Hardly, bird wings evolved from dinosaur legs. What does evolutionary theory predict would give rise to bird wings? Dinosaur legs, at least as by far the most probable source.
Good thing, too, because pterosaur wings weren’t actually all that well “designed”. Feathers give a huge advantage to bird flight, because they can be “sculpted” to produce excellent airfoils. Funny how birds should utilize pre-existing feathers and pre-existing legs for flight, and pterosaurs did not, considering that the latter had ancestors lacking in both of those.
Still, it looks like the “designer” might have improved over pterosaur flight, aside from the inconvenient fact that the “designer” apparently never looks to first principles or to likely previous designs.
But then we get to bat wings. Gee, did the designer decide to take the improved flight capabilities of birds into account, even if he couldn’t design from first principles? No, of course not, bat wings are made from mammal legs. And they don’t use the superior capabilities afforded by feathers, since the mammals do not have feathers (hair and fur just impede flight).
What does evolution predict? That bats would adapt mammalian forelegs to produce wings. What happened? Just that. What does an honest design concept predict? Either that the designer would competently design from first principles, or at least that he would take the best vertebrate wings and adapt them for bat use. One of the reasons that bats roost upside down is that they’re not particularly good fliers (they fly well enough, but not as well as birds do). Instead of taking an excellent wing to adapt, this putative “designer” takes a leg instead to change into the bats’ wings.
So in these examples, nothing that we’d expect from known designers happened, while everything expected from non-teleological evolution (and known mechanisms) did happen. And guess what? All of the “design” occurred in the period of time needed for evolution, not during the few years at most that familiar designs require.
But this is Ben’s dream world, evidence doesn’t count for anything. That’s very convenient, for it appears to be designed to avoid all of the normal conclusions that we’d come to by using the evidence. In this dream world, the compelling cases made by the evidence have to be censored out, or at least constantly disparaged as being inferior to anthropocentric claims of design.
Or in other words, in the current dark ages where evidence is indeed preferred, and non-evidence based ideas are thus set to a marked disadvantage, it is true enough that ID cannot compete with superior theories. Call that censorship if you will, however only in the world of post-modernists such as Michel Foucault is that really considered to be censorship. Stein, Foucault, and the IDists basically consider the scientific method to be censorship, and basing court decisions and science upon the evidence of our senses is thought to be an intolerable burden.
That’s why all of the yelping about our supposed harsh treatment of such nonsense is so far off base. We’re merely worried about the very basis of Western society and the enlightenment, the bases of science, technology, and fair treatment. Gee, why would we be so opposed to those who want to tear the basis for a rational society away from us?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
–But why was that a scandal? Why should a Baptist institution care, one wonders, if Darwin goes the way of Marx and Freud?–
I wonder, why should a Baptist institution should care if Einstein goes the way of Marx and Freud? Oh, unless it really cares about doing science, rather than calling Behe’s puff of smoke “science”.
–Marks - an esteemed and gifted professor - presumably realized that Baylor wanted nothing to do with evolutionary informatics if it led to doubts about Darwin. This is a big story, perhaps the biggest story yet of academic suppression relating to ID.–
And without needing a single atheist to do so (some few may have been involved, but clearly were not needed to protect honest science). Thanks very much for overturning Ben’s untenable claims.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Let’s set the scenario. The times have changed, and it is the new improved future when the requirement of evidence for “doing science” and convicting criminals has at last been overturned. ID thus reigns supreme, and the evidence of relatedness means nothing any more.
Now DNA means nothing in the courts. Why should it? God may very well have intervened to make a person’s DNA fit with the DNA retrieved from the crime scene, or God may have changed the DNA from the crime scene to fit your DNA. Are you trying to tell me that God couldn’t do this? That’s exactly what IDists tell the “Darwinists” when the latter point to DNA evidence that agrees with non-teleological evolutionary predictions.
The Bulgarian medical personel are sent back to Lybia to be killed. After all, it required phylogenetic evidence to show that they didn’t infect the Lybian children with HIV. And the IDists tell us that God intervenes in evolutionary processes, hence such evidence is worthless, now that ID is no longer “censored” by gov’t and educational institutions.
Guys are happier now, because mere DNA evidence indicates nothing to the courts. After all, if apparent DNA relatedness doesn’t show that we’re related to chimpanzees, why should DNA relatedness tell us anything about paternity? God might have intervened in evolution, and who can tell God that he can’t design in a way that makes it appear that the baby is related to one who is not the father?
And I am much happier, now that the computers which disappeared out of the warehouse and appeared in my basement cannot be traced either by serial number, nor to me. Good grief, do you really think that God couldn’t have changed the serial numbers, or even if God didn’t do that, that God couldn’t have rewarded me with the gift of all of those computers? You don’t know that they’re either the same computers or that I actually took the computers, since God might have intervened (I never really had the computers, you know, it’s an example). After all, isn’t this the sort of scientific explanation that is being “censored” by the evilutionists?
But I cheated a bit on that last one. How? Because a burglary has all of the marks of design. That is to say, it is not irrational to say that God, the Designer, aliens, or leprachauns might have picked the locks, jammed the burglar alarms, and moved the computers from one place to another. There is no good solid evidence for it, which means that in the ancient and dark past when evidence was required, nobody would believe me that God or space aliens put the computers in my basement. But it isn’t actually irrational to say that something that is designed, like a burglary, could have been done by a hypothetical rational agent like God or space aliens.
Biology is different, and was recognized as different at least as far back as Aristotle. Biology was physis to the ancient Greeks, while machines were made by techne. This is why machines are made rationally, with straight lines, foresight, teleology, and according to the numbers, while plants and animals are quite something else, “physis” or nature. Plants and animals do not have a purpose as such, nor are they at all designed as humans would design them, with “poor designs”, and by adapting rather unlikely organs to serve new functions, such as taking legs and making wings out of them.
The descent of the testicles is hardly design, it is adaptation from what previously existed, abdominal testicles, and their descent leaves weak spots in the abdominal walls (the doctor says, “now cough”). The primate foveas and bird pectens partially get around the poor “design” of the eye which put blood vessels right in front of the light-sensing retinas, but these are only ways of dealing with inherited problems expected in evolution and easily avoided by intelligent designers.
Back to wings. Think about it: three different types of vertebrates evolved wings, and none of the earlier wings were used in order to make the later wings, nor were any designed from scratch. Now the best designs would be from first principles, but humans might very well take wings from one example and adapt them to fit another purpose (as indeed the Wright brothers did). What a sensible designer would never do would be to take legs and change them in order to make wings out of them. It’s just a ridiculous way of designing wings.
Pterosaurs had the first known vertebrate wings. From what were they “designed”? From thecodont legs. What does evolutionary theory predict (in context) would give rise to pterosaur wings? Thecodont legs. By what sort of thinking would anyone expect a designer to make pterosaur wings out of thecodont legs?
The next wings were better, bird wings. So were bird wings an improved version of pterosaur wings? Why no, bird wings were made from dinosaur legs and dinosaur feathers. What would evolutionary theory predict? That bird wings would be made from dinosaur legs, and likely would utilize feathers, since they already existed and produce superb airfoils. What would honest design principles predict? Either wings from first principles, or at least from other wings. Bird wings came from legs, hardly promising material, but the only organs available to evolve into wings.
At least bird wings were an improvement, however odd the route of “design” chosen by this exceeding odd “designer” that the IDists give to us.
Bat wings were a step back, however, because as evolution predicts, they were produced from an unlikely source, mammalian legs and no feathers. The “designer” only copies legs to make vertebrate wings, not copying excellent vertebrate wings as one might expect of an actual thinking entity. Indeed, bats sleep upside down in part because they are not as good fliers as birds are, and can gain airspeed by dropping down from their roosting positions to partly compensate for their poorer flying ability during takeoff.
Then there’s the odd fact that design took four billion years or so, around the time expected for non-teleological evolution, rather than the at most a few years expected from known designers. Funny that, everything comes out like non-teleological evolution predicts, and the scientists complain when Behe tells us that we should understand it all to have been designed. The “designer” steps in to produce what non-teleological evolution would produce, but can’t according to Behe’s numbers? Um, I’m sort of thinking, why?
However, this is Ben’s dream world, in which evidence no longer counts for anything. No more “censorship” by the evidence, every notion is the equal of another and should be taught as equals. Don’t teach the scientific method in biology, it’s unfair to those who prefer theological claims to evidence-based claims. This is the post-modern world of Michel Foucault, where the mere fact that Ben has to use a blog to say what he does, instead of having his theology taught in the schools, now counts as “censorship”.
And as so many bleat on this thread, surely the fact that we protest only demonstrates our censorious nature. Yes, fighting to preserve the Enlightenment and the only bases we have for law, justice, science, and technological advancement, only indicates prejudice and bigotry. Sure, but that’s just us, we are not schooled in the ways of understanding preconceived theologies as superior to the ideas that gave us democracy and science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I hope this isn’t a multiple posting, but I can’t make my post appear “waiting moderation”, so I’m going to break it up into several posts:
Let’s set the scenario. The times have changed, and it is the new improved future when the requirement of evidence for “doing science” and convicting criminals has at last been overturned. ID thus reigns supreme, and the evidence of relatedness means nothing any more.
Now DNA means nothing in the courts. Why should it? God may very well have intervened to make a person’s DNA fit with the DNA retrieved from the crime scene, or God may have changed the DNA from the crime scene to fit your DNA. Are you trying to tell me that God couldn’t do this? That’s exactly what IDists tell the “Darwinists” when the latter point to DNA evidence that agrees with non-teleological evolutionary predictions.
The Bulgarian medical personel are sent back to Lybia to be killed. After all, it required phylogenetic evidence to show that they didn’t infect the Lybian children with HIV. And the IDists tell us that God intervenes in evolutionary processes, hence such evidence is worthless, now that ID is no longer “censored” by gov’t and educational institutions.
Guys are happier now, because mere DNA evidence indicates nothing to the courts. After all, if apparent DNA relatedness doesn’t show that we’re related to chimpanzees, why should DNA relatedness tell us anything about paternity? God might have intervened in evolution, and who can tell God that he can’t design in a way that makes it appear that the baby is related to one who is not the father?
And I am much happier, now that the computers which disappeared out of the warehouse and appeared in my basement cannot be traced either by serial number, nor to me. Good grief, do you really think that God couldn’t have changed the serial numbers, or even if God didn’t do that, that God couldn’t have rewarded me with the gift of all of those computers? You don’t know that they’re either the same computers or that I actually took the computers, since God might have intervened (I never really had the computers, you know, it’s an example). After all, isn’t this the sort of scientific explanation that is being “censored” by the evilutionists?
But I cheated a bit on that last one. How? Because a burglary has all of the marks of design. That is to say, it is not irrational to say that God, the Designer, aliens, or leprachauns might have picked the locks, jammed the burglar alarms, and moved the computers from one place to another. There is no good solid evidence for it, which means that in the ancient and dark past when evidence was required, nobody would believe me that God or space aliens put the computers in my basement. But it isn’t actually irrational to say that something that is designed, like a burglary, could have been done by a hypothetical rational agent like God or space aliens.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Continuing from my last post:
Biology is different, and was recognized as different at least as far back as Aristotle. Biology was physis to the ancient Greeks, while machines were made by techne. This is why machines are made rationally, with straight lines, foresight, teleology, and according to the numbers, while plants and animals are quite something else, “physis” or nature. Plants and animals do not have a purpose as such, nor are they at all designed as humans would design them, with “poor designs”, and by adapting rather unlikely organs to serve new functions, such as taking legs and making wings out of them.
The descent of the testicles is hardly design, it is adaptation from what previously existed, abdominal testicles, and their descent leaves weak spots in the abdominal walls (the doctor says, “now cough”). The primate foveas and bird pectens partially get around the poor “design” of the eye which put blood vessels right in front of the light-sensing retinas, but these are only ways of dealing with inherited problems expected in evolution and easily avoided by intelligent designers.
Back to wings. Think about it: three different types of vertebrates evolved wings, and none of the earlier wings were used in order to make the later wings, nor were any designed from scratch. Now the best designs would be from first principles, but humans might very well take wings from one example and adapt them to fit another purpose (as indeed the Wright brothers did). What a sensible designer would never do would be to take legs and change them in order to make wings out of them. It’s just a ridiculous way of designing wings.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Continuing from my last post:
Pterosaurs had the first known vertebrate wings. From what were they “designed”? From thecodont legs. What does evolutionary theory predict (in context) would give rise to pterosaur wings? Thecodont legs. By what sort of thinking would anyone expect a designer to make pterosaur wings out of thecodont legs?
The next wings were better, bird wings. So were bird wings an improved version of pterosaur wings? Why no, bird wings were made from dinosaur legs and dinosaur feathers. What would evolutionary theory predict? That bird wings would be made from dinosaur legs, and likely would utilize feathers, since they already existed and produce superb airfoils. What would honest design principles predict? Either wings from first principles, or at least from other wings. Bird wings came from legs, hardly promising material, but the only organs available to evolve into wings.
At least bird wings were an improvement, however odd the route of “design” chosen by this exceeding odd “designer” that the IDists give to us.
Bat wings were a step back, however, because as evolution predicts, they were produced from an unlikely source, mammalian legs and no feathers. The “designer” only copies legs to make vertebrate wings, not copying excellent vertebrate wings as one might expect of an actual thinking entity. Indeed, bats sleep upside down in part because they are not as good fliers as birds are, and can gain airspeed by dropping down from their roosting positions to partly compensate for their poorer flying ability during takeoff.
Then there’s the odd fact that design took four billion years or so, around the time expected for non-teleological evolution, rather than the at most a few years expected from known designers. Funny that, everything comes out like non-teleological evolution predicts, and the scientists complain when Behe tells us that we should understand it all to have been designed. The “designer” steps in to produce what non-teleological evolution would produce, but can’t according to Behe’s numbers? Um, I’m sort of thinking, why?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Continuing from my last post:
However, this is Ben’s dream world, in which evidence no longer counts for anything. No more “censorship” by the evidence, every notion is the equal of another and should be taught as equals. Don’t teach the scientific method in biology, it’s unfair to those who prefer theological claims to evidence-based claims. This is the post-modern world of Michel Foucault, where the mere fact that Ben has to use a blog to say what he does, instead of having his theology taught in the schools, now counts as “censorship”.
And as so many bleat on this thread, surely the fact that we protest only demonstrates our censorious nature. Yes, fighting to preserve the Enlightenment and the only bases we have for law, justice, science, and technological advancement, only indicates prejudice and bigotry. Sure, but that’s just us, we are not schooled in the ways of understanding preconceived theologies as superior to the ideas that gave us democracy and science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 5th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Listing some pro-ID Rebuttal links…
This is a fascinating and incredibly long discussion, but I’m glad to see the interest that is being sparked by this movie. Some Darwinists try to pretend that ID proponents imagine the discrimination that in many cases has actively harmed their careers, but I suspect it will be difficult to make such claims with a straight face after this movie comes out. Thanks to Ben Stein and others behind this movie for being willing to stand up for the persecuted minority: they will be viciously attacked for making this movie, as they already are being attacked. They should be commended for standing up for those whose voices are often silenced, even if that means they themselves become attacked for making the film.
Regarding this thread: internet Darwinists often think that by throwing up links to websites like TalkOrigins that they can win an argument. I’ve surveyed many of the links repeatedly posted on this list by such internet Darwinists and unfortunately there have been few posts to some of the many rebuttals to these arguments. I only have time for one post on this thread, but I’m going to post some pro-ID rebuttals to many of the links Darwinists have posted in this discussion:
1. A few Darwinists have posted a link to the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ But there is a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to that FAQ at:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Many of the individuals arguments made in the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ are rebutted in other locations, such as these links:
Fossils:
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232
Human Origins and Intelligent Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
Junk-DNA:
Intelligent Design and the Death of the “Junk-DNA” Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437
Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846
Richard Gallagher Frames Intelligent Design Proponents While Rewriting the History of Junk-DNA
Part 1: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/richard_gallagher_frames_intel.html
Part 2: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/richard_gallagher_frames_intel_1.html
Part 3: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/07/richard_gallagher_frames_intel_2.html
Problems with Molecular Phylogenies:
One person cited the TalkOrigins FAQ to make the incredibly false claim that: “The standard phylogenetic tree, from single cell life to man, is decided to better than 38 decimals.” This is blatantly false, as Darwinian scientists have had great difficulty constructing a grand tree of life using the molecular data. For discussions of this issue, see:
Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846
If the Tree of Life falls, will Darwinists hear it?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/if_the_tree_of_life_falls_will.html
Response To John Rennie at Scientific American
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/07/response_to_john_rennie_1.html
(scroll down about 1/3 of the way to see the section titled “The Molecular Data”)
Chromosomal Fusion Evidence:
And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller’s Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion (Updated)
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392
Transitional Fossils
One Darwinist threw up a bunch of links regarding transitional fossils of various taxa. Here are some pro-ID rebuttals on this point:
General fossils:
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science
Tetrapods Origins and Human Origins:
Retroactive Confessions of Ignorance and Overblown Claims of Evolution: Observing Evolutionist and Media Behavior after Discovering “Missing Links”
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1408
Human Origins:
Paleoanthropologists Disown Homo habilis from Our Direct Family Tree
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1446
Media Goes Ga-Ga Over Baby Australopithecine Fossil
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/media_goes_gaga_over_baby_aust.html
Human Origins and Intelligent Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146
Kitzmiller v. Dover:
A Darwinist also posted some links regarding the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Yet ID proponents have provided many comprehensive rebuttals to the Kitzmiller ruling. Yet the ruling fundamentally misrepresented basic facts about ID (as some commenters here have already noted). For those interested, some of them may be found at the following locations:
Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1372
Traipsing Into Evolution
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963865498/sr=8-1/qid=1143243706/ref=sr_1_1/102-0546874-3933704?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Dover In Review
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3135
The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part I: Of Motive, Effect, and History
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/the_dover_intel.html
The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part II: Of Science and Religion
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/12/the_dover_intel_1.html
Whether Intelligent Design is Science: A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697
Not-So-Quick But Nonetheless Dirty Review of the Kitzmiller Decision
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1405
ACLU Intelligent Design FAQ: An Analysis and Response
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1280
Pro-ID Amicus Briefs From the Case
Discovery Institute Amicus Brief
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=646
Discovery Institute Amicus Brief Appendix
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=647
Amicus Brief of 85 Scientists Supporting Academic Freedom for ID
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=558
Foundation for Thought and Ethics Amicus Brief
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=648
(One Darwinist asserted, “That must be why you ID people couldn’t come up with ANY examples of working ID research projects during the Dover Trial, eh?” Read some of these rebuttals: ID proponents did discuss some of their research during the trial but Judge Jones ignored it in his ruling and refused to acknowledge it existed.)
Also, one person cited Barbara Forrest’s article on the case at: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html
I wrote a 10-part response to this article, at the following locations:
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part I: Eating Forrest’s “Legal Mincemeat”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/response_to_barbara_forrests_k.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account, Part II: Assessing Dr. Forrest’s Usage of Quotations from ID Proponents
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_1.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part III: Do Religious (or Anti-Religious) Beliefs Matter?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_2.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part IV: The “Wedge Document”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_3.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part V: Phillip Johnson and Of Pandas and People
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part VI: Three Conspiracy Theories about Pro-ID Expert Witnesses
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_5.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part VII: Exposing the “Correlation = Causation” Fallacy
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_6.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part VIII: Important Facts Left Out About ID Research
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7.html
Response to Barbara Forrest’s Kitzmiller Account Part IX: The Kitzmiller Double-Standard for ID and Evolution on Peer-Review
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_8.html
Response to Barbara Forrest Part X: Misplaced Praise
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/response_to_barbara_forrest_pa.html
Regarding Judge Jones and Judicial Copying, there are many misunderstandings about this issue. A rebuttal to critics demonstrates why Judge Jones’s practice is not favored by courts. See
Analogical Legal Reasoning and Legal Policy Argumentation: A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones’ Copying from the ACLU
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1209
Using the word “Theory”
Another Darwinist threw up from a newsmedia website regarding the meaning of “theory” (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html). An analysis of this issue may be read at:
Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 6: “Is evolution ‘just’ a theory?”
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1293
Rebuttal to George Will
One person posted an article by George Will. There is a rebuttal to Will at:
Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10790
How ID uses the scientific method
Finally, in response to the first post on here by Rob, most of his questions can be answered by reading some of the following pages:
FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154
FAQ: How do we Detect Design?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203
Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846
The Positive Case for Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/becbd98b35e8e07260d4e8e92784cbbb/miscdocs/thepositivecasefordesign_v3.pdf
I do not have time to make any further posts on this blog thread but I hope that some of these links are helpful to you all in your discussions. Thanks and I hope all will do their best to keep the discussion here friendly and civil!
Casey
September 5th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Jenny, are you Denyse O’Leary, or are you just plagiarizing her? (And doing a bad job of it: “On June 1, 2007, the lab went online, amid fanfare Marks changed the URL on the Baylor serve.” Since when does changing a URL merit fanfare?)
September 5th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Jenny: I am doing a book on ID so have studied it for some time. The amount of research ID people have done is actually impressive, given the fact that (a) they can’t get funding for it,(we have tried over and over)
What are some examples of ID research proposals that failed to get funding?
Was Bruce Chapman, president of the Discover Institute, lying when he said “we’ve put over $4 million directly into scientific and scholarly research on intelligent design and evolution”?
(b) they could lose their job for it, (hundreds have)
Hundreds have lost their jobs for doing ID research? Names, please.
(c) most journals will not publish it even if well done, (they try over and over and end up only collecting rejection letters)
Examples, please.
(d) if they do publish the journal editor will face howls of protest and have to publish retractions as has happened over and over
When has this happened, other than the well-known case of Meyer and Sternberg?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Jenny asked: Have you read the report on Sternberg by the US government?
Yes. Can you provide one example of discrimination against Sternberg on the basis of his religion? How about Gonzalez?
September 5th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
If we’re here by random chance, and there is no meaning or purpose to life, then what possible difference would it make to anyone that Intelligent Design is taught in high school classrooms?
However if, like the Bible says, the human race is in rebellion against their creator, then it makes perfect sense why someone would oppose the teaching of creationism or I.D. in classrooms.
By opposing the teaching of I.D. in public schools, you are in fact admitting that God exists and that you are in rebellion against Him.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
As I stated in a recent post, there is a huge suppression of science, and it is not being allowed to be pursued. And that is because it doesn’t agree w/ Darwinism evolution. If Darwinism evolution didn’t control all the Science departments, just think of the advances in the different areas of science we could and would have. So, in this sense, Darwinism evolutionists are being very selfish. Why do they feel the need to protect their subject? What’s at stake for them? Why won’t Darwinism evolutionists even consider new research in the name of science?
The last couple days, I’ve been observing the humming bird as it comes to the feeder. Logically, I’m thinking, how could this bird have evolved? The long beak to drink from the feeder, and the mph of his wings to stay in one spot and fly as well. Now, this poor bird would have died out waiting for it’s beak to become long enough to get its food from flowers and of course the feeder, which would have came long after feeding from flowers - and also to eventually have its wings get to the speed it needs to sit still in one spot, it would have starved as well. It’s apparent to me, the humming bird was made the way he is. He couldn’t have evolved and didn’t evolve.
Each bird has its own song or sound, and each sound or song could not have evolved either. What guided each bird for his particular song? What note did he choose, how many, and when was it decided in the evolutionary stage to stop and tell it, its song was perfect? How did the chicken know to cluck, the goose to honk? Why couldn’t the chicken have honked and the goose clucked? Why does the rooster coca doodle do in the morning and not the evening? How do birds actually navigate? They didn’t have maps, didn’t ask directions, but they know where to go. No evolutionary process created this navigation system. How about the case of the white-throated warbler, whose young leave several weeks after the parents do. How do they find their way several 1000 miles away? Experiments have shown that within the brains of these birds is the inherited knowledge of how to tell latitude, longitude, and direction by the stars, plus a calendar, clock, and all the necessary navigational data needed to make such incredible journeys to the exact locations of their parents.
If DNA were as simple as evolving, you would think it could be created in the lab through the evolutionary process of evolving. Just take the simple thing it started with and go from there. I know it’s much harder than that, as in what was the first process, step? What came next? How would such a blob survive while waiting through the evolving process to finally become complete? But DNA is very complex. Sure, certain things have common DNA, but if it works, why not use it in more than one thing? You have the basic DNA, and things are created from that, man and animal using the same structure because it works.
Also - Different things are taught in different areas. For example, one place will teach that something is not true, and another will teach it is true. Like, one saying apes are our ancestor, and another saying, we evolved from monkeys, that’s why we have a tailbone because we used to have a tail. One area will ask, what are the Haeckel embryos, while another will clearly recite them. It seems when things in Darwinism evolution become disproved; it isn’t the same info in all textbooks. And if Darwinism evolution had been fact in the first place, from the beginning, then there wouldn’t be such discrepancies in textbooks. As well as many questionable things that have arisen throughout the years on ToE.
If there are actual whole fossils that show one transcending into another, I’d like to see the actual fossil photos, not drawings speculating what a fossil fragment MIGHT have looked like. You cannot take the fragment and conclude the actual living thing that left the fossil there. Even with the whole skeletal fossils, one cannot conclude the actual what it exactly looked like, how it lived or what it may or may not have eaten. One can guess, but not conclude as solid evidence. The data isn’t factual, but only a hypothesis. No one can say, this is what it looked like, how it acted and what it ate. That’s not fact, it’s only guessing. So, it shouldn’t be presented as actual fact – only a guess.
Even if it is taught in science that things are designed, the teacher doesn’t even have to say how it was designed. The students may ask him, how it was designed, or who designed. But the teacher can answer them in a way, they would have to think for themselves, see what their conclusions may be on how something was designed, and they all don’t even have to agree, but have a friendly debate but still allowing individual thought. The teacher can say he has his own theory/idea, but would like to see what his students come up with for their answers. This way, they are being allowed to think and are not suppressed by only one idea.
~M
September 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
In a desperate attempt to hold their place of prominence in the scientific community, Darwinists continue to misrepresent the work of ID scientists. More precisely, they keep lying about the ID methodology by telling the public that intelligent design is nothing more than creation science with a new label. To overcome that lie, the intelligent design community must show not only that its methods are radically different from those of creation science, but that those differences are rooted in history.
The extent to which CS differs from ID is a story that hasn’t really been told. Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature. At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand. What has always mattered in this discussion is in which direction the investigation proceeds. Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context; or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be? If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based.
Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley, and others. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based. Clearly, anyone who would claim that these two traditions are identical, that forward=backward, would be lying.
Sadly, few people will are willing to investigate this matter and come to a knowledge of the truth. The good news is that Ben Stein in here to not only explain intelligent design for what it is but also to celebrate its champions and expose the cowardly bureaucrats that persecute them.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Those making comments should really consider how they sound, especially to their philosophical opponents. (Yes, science is driven by philosophy on both sides.)
Granted, some IDers and Creationists should think thru their responses better as well, but the materialist responses all seem to have a common attitude with the following characteristics:
1. From condescension to blind hatred for those who disagree with them: insults, name-calling, and general vitriole.
EX: pick any one…
2. Gross ignorance of their opponents’ views.
Ex: Craig says: “Would you want a geology professor who taught that the earth was flat and had four corners because the Bible says so?”
Actually, the Bible says the earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22 - same Hebrew word for ball) that floats freely in space (Job 26:7).
“Four corners of the earth” of coarse is an idiom for north, east, south and west. Don’t tell me you don’t use idioms!
3. A knack for equivocation when it comes to defining terms.
Ex: Shnakepup says: The strictest definition of biological evolution would be this: Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles over time. That’s it. That’s all.
If that were the case, there would be no controversy! Even Biblical Creationists accept that. The dirty little secret is that such changes do nothing to generate the massive amounts of new information required for Common Descent.
Note Wordsmith’s post above about definitions. There is Empirical Science, and there is science based more on the imagination, what he calls Hypothetico-Deductive Science. Common Descent Evolution is NOT Empirical Science!
September 5th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, mad cow disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. – Richard Dawkins
September 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“By opposing the teaching of I.D. in public schools, you are in fact admitting that God exists and that you are in rebellion against Him.”
WOW, thats some serious olympic-grade mental gymnastics youre doing to allow that kind of circular thinking…. Lemme reword it a bit so you too can see how idiotic it is.
By opposing the teaching of unicorn theory in public schools, you are in fact admitting that unicorns exist and that you are in rebellion against them.
Why do you hate unicorns? Why dont you want our children to learn the truth about unicorns? Stop rebelling against unicorns!
September 5th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Marilyn Oakley said,
“Even with the whole skeletal fossils, one cannot conclude the actual what it exactly looked like, how it lived or what it may or may not have eaten. One can guess, but not conclude as solid evidence. The data isn’t factual, but only a hypothesis. No one can say, this is what it looked like, how it acted and what it ate.”
Well, in that case I guess we’ll have to throw out the modern crime lab, won’t we?
September 5th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
To Beaglelady,
So, what you are saying is that you could take let’s say a 1000 year old skeleton, and make the exact mold of that person, of what they exactly looked like, hair style, eye color, full lips/thin lips, etc., that you can actually say what kind of lifestyle they lived, what they believed, their likes and dislikes, etc. to be factual? And you can actually record the data, present it as fact of what they ate while they were alive?
Besides, I’m not talking about the modern crime lab, I’m talking about the fossils used to support Darwinism evolution. They take the many fragmentary fossils that have been found and actually draw pictures of what they think they looked like and how they lived. That is not actual data that can be derived from such fossils. Only imagination can come up with such stories. Nothing is know from such ancient bones. But, yet they state such things as fact, when they are not.
~M
September 5th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Pete said: “It doesn’t say that it has to be the Judeo/Christian God, it could be any religion you want. I’ve even said this to my Biology professor during a lecture on evolution, and she told me that I was an idiot for believing that there is a creator and that I should leave her class”.
What open bigotry! I would not believe this story except that I have heard it from far too many students to deny that this happens. If the professor said this about any other minority, she probably would be out of a job and for good reason. As someone once said of creationists of all stripes, they are now the new “Blacks” (another word was used which I will not use here due to respect for my many cousins who are African Americans).
September 5th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
“If Darwinism evolution didn’t control all the Science departments, just think of the advances in the different areas of science we could and would have.”
Apart from the fact that Darwinian evolution itself doesn’t control all the science departments (just ask the physics department! :), that’s a very important question to ponder. Seriously.
What advances in science would intelligent design bring to the table?
Based on what I’ve seen of the movement, it’s actually a science-stopper. After it takes a look at everything and concludes “yes, it was designed”, what else does it have to offer? “Who? Why? How?”, perhaps? The questions are either unanswerable or, if the bulk of intelligent design sponsors drop the pretense, already decided in a theological manner.
Then what?
This reduces science to coffee shop banter. “Why did the designer design the platypus this way?” is not the stuff of labs or science - there’s no independent way of settling the question. If Sylvia Browne pretended to know the answer, would everyone believe her?
To judge by the Wedge Document and other comments, the goals of those behind the intelligent design movement (*not* necessarily those of individual believers) are political and religious, and simply aim to neuter science that appears to get in the way of those goals. It tars the scientists and science and pretends all the while that it is not simply pronouncing nature as deceitful when you study it in depth. “It looks complex - it’s a machine - stop asking questions!” Evolutionary theory, even though it comes from an honest study of nature, is the most visible target because its discoveries stand in the way of the “anti-materialist” goals of the intelligent design movement.
Evolutionary theory would never presume to tell you that the stately hummingbird waited around until its beak got long enough. Hummingbirds can’t will their beaks longer any more than I can will my hand smaller to fit into a narrow cookie jar (and I try!). Starving hummingbirds left no children. Evolution simply wouldn’t work, too, if all children were exactly like their parents and one another. I note with some jealousy people who can fit their hands into said cookie jars.
I do not state this merely as a “just so” story - simply to point out that there are a number of rumors and misunderstandings of evolutionary theory circulating. If you think something about evolutionary theory is ridiculous, then please *ask*. We’ve heard the rumors, too, and while (I know, I know) we get exhausted and crabby from responding to them because we are fairly sure that they’re spread on purpose, we appreciate an honest question.
By the way, Marilyn, I do actually happen to really like and agree with many of the points in The Cosmology Quest. I respect the Burbridges most of all.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Hi Ritchie,
I think many would be amazed what really goes on behind closed doors. I do believe their is a huge academic suppression and there is a tremendous need for academic freedom, and freedom of inquiry. I think instead of one asking, what does ID have to offer, perhaps we should see what they have to offer. But, it has been known that any data they discover, does get met with hostility. And that is because, it doesn’t agree with Darwinism evolution.
And students are not allowed to be free thinkers when it comes to certain subjects. A student should be allowed to ask questions or even make inquires without being told they are ignorant, stupid or otherwise. Logic or common sense cannot come in to play if they are taught to think in the straight line of Darwinism evolution only and not to go outside of that thinking. The first amendment, freedom of speech does get violated here.
~M
September 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am
“You have been hoodwinked into believing false information.”
To what “false information” do you refer?
“The Coelacanth is still a Coelacanth,…It did not evolve from being a Fish to any other new species.”
There are a number of problems with your statement.
The first problem is that no one claims that the contemporary Coelacanth is not a Coelacanth. You are attacking a statement that no one has made.
The second problem is that “Fish” is not a species. In fact, Coecalanth itself is not a single species.
“That means it is not a representative example of MACRO-evolution as Talkorigions would like you to believe!”
No one claimed that Coelacanth was an example of speciation, you shameless liar. Marilyn Oakely claimed that the Coelacanth somehow “disproved” evolution because it has existed unchanged for over 60 million years. I pointed out, correctly, that 1) the Coelacanth found extant today is not “unchanged” from the Coelacanth that existed 60 million years ago and 2) the theory of evolution does not require that all organisms change over time, so even if the Coelacanth extant today were identical to the Coelacanth of 60 million years ago, it would have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.
I never claimed that the Coelacanth is an example of “macro evolution”. I was pointing out that a creationist claim regarding the Coelacanth was a lie. Apparently you find it easier to lie about what I have said than to actually address the content of my statements.
A creationist engaging in transparetn dishonesty. What a shock.
“Infact the majority of those 29 proofs are evidence of MICRO-evolution(Which is a FACT!)…Not Macro-evolution(Which is not a FACT!). But you knew that already,didnt you?”
What a lovely assertion devoid of any substance.
Please, justify your claim. You might actually recover a smidgen of the credibility that you killed when you outright lied about my statement regarding the Coelacanth.
“I used to believe in MACRO-Evolution until I researched and found too many discrepancies (The same ones Gould and other scientist say in the fossil record).”
I notice that you don’t actually elaborate on these alleged “discrepencies”. Supporting your claims is so much harder than merely making them.
“If you remove the fear of the potential implications of Darwin’s theory, and focus on Validation of TOE(MACRO) on its own merits, you will be shocked at the total lack of evidence and how scientist have been more than willing to compromise or manipulate the scientific data to support their belief in Macro-evolution.”
State the alleged “implications”. Also, since you’re harping on about the common creationist strawman of “macro vs. micro evolution”, please give a detailed explanation of the differencens between the two. Explain what would need to occur for “macro-evolution” to take place, and contrast that with “micro-evolution”.
When you’ve done that, justify your assertion that data has been “compromised”. Merely asserting it is not evidence for your claim.
“You do not find such blatant discrepancies in other scientific fields.”
You’ve yet to demonstrate that such “blatant discrepencies” occur in the theory of evolution. Pony up.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:58 am
“They take the many fragmentary fossils that have been found and actually draw pictures of what they think they looked like and how they lived. ”
Actually, they don’t draw pictures so much as analyze. But, then, you claimed that the Coelacanth found extant today was “identical” to the Coelacanth fossil specimens dated at 65 million years ago and you thought that this being true (it’s actually false) somehow disproved evolution (it wouldn’t actually do that even if true), so I’m not surprised that you don’t understand how fossils are analyzed. You’ve clearly done no research at all.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:05 am
” I would not believe this story except that I have heard it from far too many students to deny that this happens.”
I’ve heard an identical story so often that it sounds too rehearsed to be believed.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“By opposing the teaching of I.D. in public schools, you are in fact admitting that God exists and that you are in rebellion against Him.”
Ken Miller and Francis Collins are in rebellion against God? Quite shocking, given that they are both devout believers, yet both reject teaching ID in public schools.
It would seem that the more likely explanation is that you have no knowledge on what you speak.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Well, I might as well weigh in on this (and get lost in the shear numbers of it all). Atheism is a faith systme that CANNOT stand up to evaluation. ID proponents and Christian apologists ought to take the battle (war) to the universitys and all liberals who consider themselves intellectually honest. Challenge all the them to a public discussion. Given a short amount of time, honest people will see the truth and reasonablness of God. If an atheist.agnostic.skeptic says something to the contrary, let him (her) accept the challenge.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:25 am
My response to the following claim is below: “Based on what I’ve seen of the movement, it’s actually a science-stopper. After it takes a look at everything and concludes yes, ‘it was designed’, what else does it have to offer?”
In fact the opposite is true. Read The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul written by a PhD neuroscientist at the University of Montreal. At least check out the reviews on Amazon.com. It is well documented that dogmatic evolution is, in fact, a science stopper as Steins film, from what I know about it, documents.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:49 am
“Well, for all of you saying that ID is not a science and that evolution is the only way to go, I have a few words for you. What I believe you’re trying to tell me is that because of a random series of extreme coincidences, here we are.”
Your belief, then, is incorrect. The process of evolution is not random. Moreover, the theory of evolution addresses only biological events occuring after the first extant reproducing organisms. Prior to this event, it can say nothing, meaning that the ultimate origin of the universe was not a result of “a random series of extreme coincidence” without contradicting the theory of evolution (which itself does not propose “a random series of extreme coincidences”).
“I find that extremely difficult to believe.”
Your personal incredulity is not evidence for any position.
“To quote my pastor, “It takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God.””
Unless your pastor has extensive training in the field of biology, his statement is meaningless.
“I’ve even heard other people who say close to the same thing, but instead of it being, “in God” at the end, it’s just “in a Creator.””
Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. That people have made a statement such as the above is evidence of nothing except that some people have made a particular statement.
“A very open ended statement if you ask me.”
It is a meaningless statement.
“It doesn’t say that it has to be the Judeo/Christian God, it could be any religion you want.”
Which is irrelevant as to the validity of the statement.
“I’ve even said this to my Biology professor during a lecture on evolution, and she told me that I was an idiot for believing that there is a creator and that I should leave her class.”
Your anecdote is difficult to consider as credible, and it is also irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
In fact, your statements regarding a “Creator” in general are wholly irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. It would appear as though you are attempting to establish a false dichotomy.
“And that was even more evidence that believing in God being the Creator of the earth and everything on it is being persecuted in our public colleges.”
Your anecdote is evidence of nothing.
“Nowadays pretty much the only place where someone won’t be persecuted for believing in ID is in a private religious school, and their in short supply.”
Please justify your assertion that anyone is being “persecuted” for “believing” in “ID”.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
This is funny. the movie hasn’t even been shown yet and everyone’s a critic.
I like Ben Stein!!
September 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Some scientists believe intelligence is an intrinsic aspect of biological systems. Maybe not a majority. It is being discussed all over the internet. The fact that not a hint of that controversy appears in scientific journals is clear evidence that it be ing suppressed. What are they afraid of? If the materialists are so sure they are right, let it be discussed in the scientific journals.
[url=http://30145.myauthorsite.com/]Questions about materialism[/url]
September 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Some scientists beliefe intelligence is an intrinsic aspect of biological organization. Maybe not a majority. However it is being debated all over the Internet. The fact that the subject is not debated in scientific journals makes it pretty clear than they are trying to suppress the debante. What are they afraid of? If materialists are so sure they are right let it be debated in scientific journals.
[url=http://30145.myauthorsite.com/[/url]
September 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
“Atheism is a faith systme that CANNOT stand up to evaluation.”
Atheism is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
“ID proponents and Christian apologists ought to take the battle (war) to the universitys and all liberals who consider themselves intellectually honest.”
Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with atheism, though you are at least getting back on topic. What I don’t understand, however, is why you’ve jumped from discussing atheism to “liberals”, when this is a discussion about ID versus the theory of evolution.
“Challenge all the them to a public discussion.”
What, exactly, would be the subject of discussion?
“Given a short amount of time, honest people will see the truth and reasonablness of God.”
To which “God”, out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you claim that specific deity to be the one that “honest people” will “see the truth and reasonableness” regarding, as opposed to any other proposed deity?
Also, what does the existence of any deity have to do with evolution versus ID?
“If an atheist.agnostic.skeptic says something to the contrary, let him (her) accept the challenge.”
Perhaps you could explain the relevance of atheism to the topic of discussion here. It seems as though you are responding to a completely different discussion.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
“I think many would be amazed what really goes on behind closed doors. I do believe their is a huge academic suppression and there is a tremendous need for academic freedom, and freedom of inquiry.”
You are free to “believe” this, but please understanding that your “believing” this does not translate to actual evidence.
I might add that your blunder regarding Coelacanth really didn’t help your credibility on this subject, either.
“I think instead of one asking, what does ID have to offer, perhaps we should see what they have to offer.”
What they have to offer has been seen. They have argument from incredulity leading to a non-sequitur conclusion, the basis of which are demonstratably false assertions of “irreducible complextity”. They have also, accidentally, offered up the “Wedge Document” wherein they *openly admit* that their basis and their goals are religious (specifically, Christian) in nature.
The problem isn’t that we haven’t seen what they have to offer. The problem is that we HAVE seen what they have to offer, and it’s either been totally debunken or it exposes that they have an anti-science agenda.
“But, it has been known that any data they discover, does get met with hostility. And that is because, it doesn’t agree with Darwinism evolution.”
Maybe you could justify this assertion, rather than merely making it. Provide some “data” that they have discovered, then demonstrate the hostility with which it was met.
And try to make sure that the data that you reference is actually real. Don’t bring up a demonstratably false claim, like your assertion regarding Coelacanth.
“And students are not allowed to be free thinkers when it comes to certain subjects.”
Oh, the horror. Students can’t make up whatever answer they want in established fields of study.
Do you not understand that students are generally not allowed to be “free thinkers” on nearly any subject? Do you think that students should be allowed to “think for themselves” regarding the events of US history? What about advanced chemistry? If a student disagrees that the molecular makeup of water is two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom, is it “supression” of their free thinking to call their answer wrong?
“A student should be allowed to ask questions or even make inquires without being told they are ignorant, stupid or otherwise.”
And when you can demonstrate that such a thing is happening en masse, you might have a point.
“Logic or common sense cannot come in to play if they are taught to think in the straight line of Darwinism evolution only and not to go outside of that thinking.”
How, exactly, would one “go outside of that thinking”? Please be specific. Until you clarify your claims, they are impossible to evaluate.
“The first amendment, freedom of speech does get violated here.”
Really? Please explain this. State, specifically, how the government is preventing the free expression of speech.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
–Listing some pro-ID Rebuttal links…–
Yes, of course. Why don’t you answer the questions, particularly the ones asked of your DI propaganda? You know very well that virtually everything the DI has put out has been answered, usually without the DI addressing the points made by those who responded. Instead we get the same droning nonsense over and over again.
Why don’t you answer the questions I raised in post #389 and in #1031? I know why, it’s because you have no good answers to them.
I’ll link to a few of the responses made to the ID propaganda.
–This is a fascinating and incredibly long discussion, but I’m glad to see the interest that is being sparked by this movie. Some Darwinists try to pretend that ID proponents imagine the discrimination that in many cases has actively harmed their careers,–
Of course we don’t deny that unevidenced religious bias presented as “science” isn’t largely rejected by academia. What we do deny is that it is anything that shouldn’t be done, as astrologists, homeopathists, and alchemists are also rejected (well, usually).
–but I suspect it will be difficult to make such claims with a straight face after this movie comes out.–
Quit changing the subject. The issue is the false claim that ID is being “censored”, as Ben claims, which it is so very clearly not, as Casey’s list of links shows. That it isn’t accepted by academia in lieu of its miserable showings on the evidentiary front, and its attempts to change science so that “it looks designed” counts as evidence, is only to the credit of academia (which is hardly perfect, certainly).
–Thanks to Ben Stein and others behind this movie for being willing to stand up for the persecuted minority:–
We’re waiting for evidence of the “persecuted minority”. Not that the lack of evidence stops IDists from making outrageous claims.
–they will be viciously attacked for making this movie, as they already are being attacked.–
Yes, we are so mean for calling ID on all of its false claims, and Ben’s unsupported charges.
–They should be commended for standing up for those whose voices are often silenced, even if that means they themselves become attacked for making the film.–
Why aren’t you standing up for genuinely ignored science, instead of for long-falsified claims, and subsequent non-predictive claims which avoid falsification by denying the obvious predictions which an honest ID theory would make?
–Regarding this thread: internet Darwinists often think that by throwing up links to websites like TalkOrigins that they can win an argument. I’ve surveyed many of the links repeatedly posted on this list by such internet Darwinists and unfortunately there have been few posts to some of the many rebuttals to these arguments.–
They’re rebuttals, not actual answers.
–I only have time for one post on this thread, but I’m going to post some pro-ID rebuttals to many of the links Darwinists have posted in this discussion:–
And why didn’t you post the rebuttals to the DI’s sorry nonsense? You know very well that, quite unlike the charges of “censorship” suggest, that you have been amply answered. And most importantly, your “rebuttals” are largely attacks on “Darwinism”, not at all evidence for your theological intrusions into science.
1. A few Darwinists have posted a link to the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ But there is a direct and comprehensive rebuttal to that FAQ at:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp –
It is not direct, nor comprehensive. It’s an attempt to nickel and dime the real predictions of evolution to death, without addressing the real predictions made by evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, the “29 Evidences” could have been written more carefully (for there is no inherent prediction that all life should be related, and for other reasons), however it does get to the gist of evolutionary prediction, while the “response” merely cavils on minor aspects and mistakes by the “29 Evidences” authors. I can hardly respond to the entire piece, but here’s an example I picked up at the very beginning:
–Unless one inserts an additional premise imposing a limit on the degree to which descendants can vary (which would require specification of a mechanism of descent), the claim of common ancestry does not require that all of the descendants share one or more traits. There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages.–
Of course there is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages (which would be something like abiogenesis, only of too-complex organisms), it’s because of what we’ve learned about evolutionary mechanisms that insists that this cannot happen. The author is trying to make a point that is entirely specious in the overall theory of evolution, which is based upon many limiting factors. Thus his argument here is entirely bogus, except as a cheap debating tactic.
Here’s a really quite good response to some of the above link’s many claims, one that I think is really a better source than “29 Evidences” ever was:
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/courses/botany_940/powerpoints/Agreement_among_genes.ppt
Note in particular how it mentions how desert grasses have the same photosynthetic machinery as do grasses in cool moist areas do, NOT the better photosynthetic mechanisms of cacti. One would predict this from known evolutionary mechanisms (or at least, that whatever desert grasses have would not be the same as those of cacti, and that convergent evolution would be evident from any recent evolutionary convergences), and one would naturally predict a designer to design desert grasses for their environments, not to mimic grasses in cool wet regions (IDists don’t predict this, solely because they’d be immediately falsified).
And here’s another link that covers only one aspect of where Casey’s linked site goes so very wrong:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_tail_bone_is_not_vestigial_since_there_are_nine_muscles_
–Many of the individuals arguments made in the TalkOrigins Common Descent FAQ are rebutted in other locations, such as these links:
Fossils:
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232 –
As usual, Casey only attacks evolutionary theory, he doesn’t support design or creation at all. Furthermore, he’s faulting evolution over punctuated equilibrium, when the real proponents of punctuated equilibrium recognize the familiar evidences of non-teleological evolution to be compelling. Casey writes:
–Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms.–
This appears to be a deliberate, or very ignorant, confusion of what is meant by “explosion” in those contexts. Not even the “Cambrian Explosion” is as Casey characterizes it, but I’ll concede that it’s still an issue, no matter that evolution during the Cambrian is evident and chordates do not appear at the beginning. Birds and mammals do radiate rapidly at times, particularly after the Cretaceous, but that’s all we see, rapid evolution. We do not see novelty appearing, as one might expect from ID.
–34 Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution”35 where “no australopithecine [ape] species is obviously transitional”35 leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution.–
Again the twisting of what is meant by “explosion” there. Certainly the evolution of H. sapiens from H. erectus is well accepted by scientists, and australopithecines have no obvious reason to exist at all except as part of a hominin adaptive radiation, whether or not any are our direct ancestor. Indeed, why do IDists suppose that australopithecines, were “designed”, only to go extinct? It’s an answer that Casey, like the others, never gives to us.
–36 While these papers appeal to adapative radiation, niche-filling, and “genetic revolutions” as the mechanisms for these explosions, the pattern of rapid appearance of diverse morphologies without transitions remains an important pattern in the fossil record.
Conclusion:
Out of thousands of species in the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be transitional forms. This lack of transitional forms poses, as Darwin said, “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against [evolutionary] theory.”1 And, at least to this point, it appears to be an objection that is unsolved by evolutionists. –
Casey seems not even to know what punctuated equilibrium is meant to answer, which is the problem of speciation. There are in fact very many transitionals identified in the fossil record (he’s just wrong about that), and all vertebrate classes have at least one intermediate form extant in the fossil record.
As far as Casey’s quote mining of Darwin goes, Darwin went on from the “gravest objection” to give a number of possible reasons why intermediates to the species were not found (as it was at that time, not at the present).
More importantly, Casey has utterly failed to explain why transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx are in fact “poorly designed” compared to modern birds, just as non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts (that’s the short version of how we even know that they are transitional), and ID would not.
–Human Origins and Intelligent Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1146 –
Here’s a link that partly addresses Casey’s claims in the above link:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/meet_selam.html
–The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science –
Answered here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html
Junk-DNA:
–Intelligent Design and the Death of the “Junk-DNA” Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1437 –
Such “ignorant yammerings” (as Matzke calls them in the link) are routed here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/junk_dna_junk_s.html
–Design vs. Descent: A Contest of Predictions
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/846 –
A short, pithy response to such meandering nonsense is found here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_versu_1.html#comment-95724
And frankly, that’s enough. For anyone with an honest desire to learn, those alone answer so much of what IDists claim, and show up how pathetic their little apologetics pieces actually are. More importantly, I’ve shown by finding responses to almost every one of Casey’s links on the web that the responses are out there, so that anyone can find them. Casey just doesn’t acknowledged that, far from being censored, ID has been exposed for the sham that it is, and IDists simply link the same quote mining and worthless argumentation no matter how many times they have been answered.
And I repeat that virtually everything written by the DI and Casey merely attacks current science, it rarely even purports to produce any evidence for ID, and never comes close to presenting any legitimate evidence that organisms have been designed. Indeed, if they had that, they’d have answered the two posts that I pointed out have gone begging for answers from the IDists, post #389 and post #1031. They have no answers, so that even if #1031 was posted after Casey had written the comment that I have responded to here, it’s safe to say that it hasn’t been answered properly and won’t be merely because IDists have no answers, not because of any “censorship”.
I’ll only respond further to Casey’s closing paragraph:
–I do not have time to make any further posts on this blog thread–
And still you’ve written dozens, if not more, posts on the internet which have failed to give any evidence for ID. I’d think you could answer our questions, if you had any answers to our questions.
–but I hope that some of these links are helpful to you all in your discussions.–
They are not. I posted several which are helpful, and which are generally written by actual scientists, not lawyers like Luskin (he does have degrees in earth science, reportedly, not, however, in biology).
–Thanks and I hope all will do their best to keep the discussion here friendly and civil!–
Yes, IDists always want us to “be civil” as they attack science with the most worthless bilge, quote mines, and frequent false claims. We have answered them, they continue to avoid telling us how ID can account for different patterns of evolution in prokaryotes vs. those in eukaryotes, and why vertebrate wings are modifications of legs, not designs from first principles or even modifications of good wings (posts #389 & #1031 respectively). Furthermore, they almost always do nothing but attack science, while refusing to make even the obvious design predictions expected (because they know that they’d fail), and never providing any evidence of rational thought behind the “designs” of organisms. Rational thought is more than a little evident in nearly all of human creations, and would be expected from alien designs as well (if aliens do not produce rational signals and tools, we likely could never detect their designs). It’s God (or “the designer”) alone which is supposed to design without anything actually appearing to be designed, or to be techne, as the Greeks called it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 6th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“Wonder why this SCIENTIFIC DATA isn’t known to the public? ”
That would be because it’s not actually “SCIENTIFIC DATA”. It is appeal to incredulity, but the presenters are lying about it and claiming that it is scientific, then they are lying about “supression” because absurd logical fallacies that would never pass peer review don’t appear in scientific journals.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I’d like to make a slight correction to my most recent post. I wrote:
–…I’ve shown by finding responses to almost every one of Casey’s links on the web that the responses are out there, so that anyone can find them.–
Of course I meant that I found responses to almost every one of Casey’s links on the web up to the point where I quit trying, as indicated in my comments. I’m not going to spend all day looking for responses, when mostly the DI (Discovery Institute) pieces are trivially wrong in most of their claims, and most of all, typically avoid the great failing of ID, which is that it can’t provide any meaningful evidence for design in unengineered organisms. Any honest person who reads Casey’s links would use Google to find out what is wrong with them anyway, if they don’t already know.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Marilyn, there’s really not an awful lot of weird stuff going on behind closed doors in academia, in biology in particular. Academics alternately collaborate and rip into each other all the time, and from conferences I’ve witnessed, the things that really set academics off is when you do a paper or dissertation and miss major research. I witnessed one poor grad student being roasted at a computer science conference - they had a point, but, ouch!
I’ve taken some time to read a few intelligent design papers like Dembski’s ‘No Free Lunch’ and Meyer’s controversial ‘The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories’ that the Sternberg controversy is about, and I’m convinced that it’s the actual quality and research of the papers that are the problem. Dembski, after doing his math, makes major errors applying it to evolutionary theory, and Meyer ignores a *lot* of relevant research in order to make his claims, and that includes a few of the same mistakes I saw Dembski making, right in the middle of his paper. Quoting Denton from *1986* to make a big point about how rare functional proteins should be, even though research (and Denton himself) know the analogy doesn’t hold any more, is downright weird to do in a modern review paper.
By contrast, I’ve read papers and pre-release papers by Arp, Russell and the like: the likes of folks interviewed for the Cosmology Quest DVD. Those by contrast are good papers, and marginalized as they may be, they still get published and debated, and that’s in a scientific field where you can’t even touch the objects of your investigation.
As to students being allowed free speech during class, I’m surprised at that assertion. So much is squeezed into the curriculum these days, that there’s barely time to cover the subject material. History class can’t take huge detours to address claims of fake moon landings or myriad JFK assassination. The teachers are there to teach the academic consensus. Putting teachers on the spot with a “couldn’t the academic consensus be wrong?” is just grandstanding. It’s not a free speech issue any more than talking in a movie theater is, but if you’re lucky, the teacher will be able to provide a good answer (if you’re really lucky, it will be the excellent teacher I’m married to :). Given that intelligent design hasn’t proven itself out yet academically (and currently, it’s entirely fair to say that), it’s fair to give it short shrift in the curriculum, and thus in the classroom.
I’m sure there are some teachers who handle it badly, but quite frankly, if you remember your own school days, you probably had a lot of good teachers… but didn’t you just have some real stinkers? Given the approximately 3 million teachers in the U.S. alone, I’m surprised we haven’t heard of more incidents, quite frankly.
Students are less straightjacketed by all this than you might figure. Curricula are by and large descriptive: you get to learn the history of why scientists believe this, the tie-ins with genetics and fossils and dating, and then you’re off onto other subjects, dissecting frogs and making Punnett squares. Ask the students which of the above traumatized them more (I’m sure there will still be a few who say Punnett squares
September 6th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I just came across an interesting book, that others may find of interest:
The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy
It seems to be A Top Science Best Seller at Amazon.com
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/homepage.html
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/
~M
September 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Ref: 1057
The publics’ opinion means very little - science is not a popularity contest nor is science a democracy. It is weighed on the data presented in the peer-reviewed forum and through this the Theory of Evolution has become the backbone of modern biology.
The idea of censorship in 2007 is laughable; whilst it would be better to present the data in well-regarded magazines as “Nature” or “Science”, it is a simple process to establish a web-site and present the hypothesis and the data. ID does not do this - instead its proponents interviews biologists - under false premises - to make another claim to authority that everyone in the ’scientific establishment’ is against them. The constant parroting of incorrect scientific criticisms such as the ‘Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution’ is tiresome and dishonest.
Do the groundwork. Publish the findings. Let them be reviewed by your peers. This is how science works, not by invoking a supernatural element.
At the moment there is very little to suggest that ID is anything more than a political movement seeking to establish a theocracy - this is evidenced by the Wedge Documents, the origins of Pandas and People book and the unabashedly religious web-sites of the likes of Answers in Genesis. The premise that ‘evolution = atheism’ is quite frankly nonsense considering the branches of all religions that consider it good science.
The origin stories of the various major religions have their place - in their respective places of worship and classes of comparative religion - but until they can prove their worth under the scientific method they do not belong in the school room at any level.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Thanks must be given to Ben for exposing the tyranny of the “Scientific Establishment”. Perhaps now concepts such as Astrology and Homeopathy can enter the pantheon of legitimate science in the mind of the American public.
September 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
A documentary like this is overdue. The issue goes beyond our universities as there seems to be a concerted effort by academics, the media, and even some parts of government to stifle freedom of religious expression of any kind in the U.S. All under the guise of progressive advancement of society.
To deny a qualified person a job just because they don’t think similarly to you is questionable at the very least. Their education, training and experience should control the hiring selector’s decision.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Brian Barkley said:
“Jacob Evilsizor’s books that he posts here never get read because they are just so much hot air.”
The reason evolutionists do not read my posts, and yet ironically proclaim with uncanny ignorance that they are filled with “so much hot air,” is because they are exactly the opposite; they are full of valid points that you and your ilk here on this forum cannot respond to without running tuck-tail to talkorigins and finding the first article that you think defends your position, without even necessarily understanding or critically analyzing what exactly your position is.
Joel Pelletier said:
“you wrote in your first post:
“The irony is that evolution is a de facto theory which is only maintained by brain-washing the proverbial “masses” by consistently proclaiming pure conjecture to be absolute fact; a very efficient and effective method used by the Nazi party in Germany not so long ago. This is why you have empty-headed no-nothings proclaiming with ideological zeal that evolution is an indisputable fact and has “tons of evidence” and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers; as if the argument from authority method was in fact a fitting substitute for actual, credible evidence.”
This is a complete strawman arguement and is invalid. No one is brainwashed at all, we learn it in school and not until junior high, the only requirement is to learn the priciples, there is no ideology there, that is your own insunuation and is dishonest. Also, you use the arguement from authority incorrectly. When there is a scientific consensus on a theory that is not an appeal to authority - an appeal to authority would be to cite just one scientist, not a whole body of independent scientists working in differing fields all using the theory of evolution to develop real world applications. Also, the insults render your arguement even less compelling.”
Please read my post #891 regarding the accusation of using “straw man” arguments, as I think that you are misunderstanding the concept. What I was in fact doing in this paragraph, was using hyperbole, for the sake of dramatic effect. In a way, however, it was more like an analogy than anything else; considering the extent of the perpetuation of a subterfuge of this magnitude, and the fact that willingly ignorant evolutionists proselytize the ignorant into the pretentious priesthood of Darwinism by subverting the truth and creating their own version of it, it can at the very least be paralleled with the systematic indoctrination of naïve malefactors into Nazism; at least in methodology anyways. Your contention that “no one is brainwashed at all” is patently false, and basically proves my point, although indirectly. The premise of evolution is founded on the idea that a designer is not necessary, which is both illogical and contrary to what the observable evidence suggests. This fallacious assumption is nevertheless used to extrapolate millions of years out of an earth that is clearly only thousands. Because this false dogmatism permeates every crevice of our society, being surreptitiously ingrained in our children from the time they enter grade school, is it indeed an account of brainwashing. It goes something like this:
When little Billy goes to school the first day and the class opens up their picture book about dinosaurs, the first thing he reads (as we all know) is: “Millions of years ago, Dinosaurs roamed the earth.” Without a knowledgeable role model to help little Billy discern the truth about the millions of years farce, he will probably believe it unwittingly for his entire life, as most people do. Later his parents will take him to the Natural History Museum, where he will see the dinosaur display with the life-sized T-Rex (because kids love the T-Rex) and the museum guide will explain that “70 million years ago this dinosaur was the king of all the meat-eaters.” From here he has only to be subjected to several science classes that teach him the “fact” that the Big Bang started the universe some 15 billion years ago, and that life on earth began almost 4 billion years ago. He will continue to be brainwashed by the media, movies, television, magazines, books, zoos, aquariums, museums, science textbooks, science teachers, professors, and even naïve people in general, that millions and billions of years is not only science, but that it is indisputable fact, and cannot be argued or disproved in any way, and any attempt to do so is simply religious zealots and conspiracy theorists trying to push their pseudo-science on the “real” scientists who have real “degrees” from accredited and completely unbiased universities that preach the “truth” that is evolution.
When an opinion which is built on assumptions and is not supported by the evidence–and is in fact, contradicted by the evidence–is dogmatically touted (and taught) as incontrovertible fact, you are talking about brainwashing; you are talking about evolution. Your inability to discern this is a logical result of successful indoctrination, which we [who are critical of evolution] all expect. This is why you all parrot emphatically that evolution “has tons of evidence,” despite having none at all.
As for my use of argument from authority, once again I think that you have a misunderstanding of the concept. Please refer to this page for further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Examples_of_appeals_to_authority
Although this particular argument, utilizing scientific consensus, is a faction of a grander theory called consensus theory of truth, it is still encompassed within appeal to authority or argument from authority methodology. Fortunately, absolute truth is itself independent of both consensus, and methodology by our standards. Absolute truths cannot be defined in a world originating from chaos (nor would they make sense), and yet they are necessary to both bind together our universe, and to allow for a unified and structured reality. Scientific laws that govern our universe are founded on mathematical principles which are the necessary product of a logical creator, and are thus considered absolute truths (the mathematics, not necessarily our defined laws). I would suggest reading these three articles for more on this; they are very informative:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/06/15/feedback-laws-of-nature
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/07/13/feedback-interpreting-facts
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/creationists-deny-laws-of-nature
The “insults” you refer to are not in fact personal attacks at all; they are simply a characterization of the methodology of indoctrination that evolution utilizes, only in hyperbole form for emphasis.
Your whole second paragraph is an arguement from incredulity. The “contradictions” that you have personally selected to make your arguement stronger are backed up by no refrences to research that support your opinion. An opinion that is based on the inability for you to understand the deeper elements of evolution. Ignorance of a subject just renders your arguements vapid because you present nothing to support your conclusions. Also the “bait n switch” analogy was another strawman. The only evidence I see in all your posts is evidence of intellectual dishonesty and continuous logical fallacies. You dont even properly apply logical fallacies when you try to critisize other arguements. Your understanding of evolution is obviously layman and the areas you try to debunk are so beyond you that you are making glaring errors everywhere.”
Quite to the contrary, the argument that I laid forth was one based on a rather in-depth knowledge of the evolutionary theory, methodology, tactics, and telltale lack of evidence that I’m fairly confident exceeds yours by leaps-and-bounds. References are not required when debating principles of logical discourse, which are based on common-sense observations and generally accepted biological certainties. For example, something that is complex can be extrapolated to the logical conclusion that it was necessarily designed, such as a watch, computer, or the human eye; some might call this the theory of irreducible complexity, I call it logical inference. Either way, to deny such inferences on principle and without contention, is to remain both intellectually dishonest and willingly ignorant; hence, the theory of evolution remains. I presented a serious flaw in evolutionary theory in that it does not demonstrate an observed mechanism for the huge functional genetic information gains that evolution requires, and mutations and natural selection do not produce. The bait‘n’switch analogy does not classify as a straw man argument, because it is the primary tactic used by evolutionists to propel their illogical theory; and thus it is exceedingly relevant to the subject at hand. Please explain your accusation of intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies, as I get the impression you are simply throwing out lengthy words in an attempt to make your posts more verbose. I explained to you the context of my application of logical fallacies in regards to the argument at hand, and how evolutionists circumvent logic when it suits their means. The fact that you have presented not one intuitive counter argument to my logical points which invalidate evolution shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both evolution and logic on your part. Next time you present an argument, please stick to refuting the substance of the accusations I present toward evolution, as opposed to spewing grammatically incorrect rhetoric that is blatantly nihil ad rem.
CRasch:
You are not even worth debating, because you add absolutely no intellectual reciprocation in your short, grammatically incorrect retorts. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are either not accustomed to speaking the English language, or are in actuality a child. This is not to sound mean, but because you seem to want to pontificate about things outside of your ability to comprehend, I think it is fair to call you out on them.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Ron Thomas you said, “Atheism is a faith system that CANNOT stand up to evaluation.”
Your statement is in correct, Faith is believing in something with though there is no evidence to back it, or it contradicts the evidence. Atheism is the not believing in something due to no evidence or lack of!
Now though I say i can’t disprove god, I can show that there is no evidence for him at all and also there is evidence against him. Many of the things we connect to him are not valid (bible, ancient history, claims of miracles, self contradiction, etc). Also there has been a history of beliefs in these various gods in the past history of many different cultures, with no evidence to validate them and the same strength of belief. Their followers that lead people to make foolish choices sacrifice their lives and invest themselves blindly in thing harmful to others and themselves in the name of these gods. Eventually it was found these gods didn’t exist so we moved onto new gods that better suited the popular culture and ,moral attitudes of the time. This happen many time throughout world history. Since we all agree on these gods of the past not being real, an excellent case can be built to show that god(s) is a cultural structure created by humans. knowing this it would seem to be a poor investment to blindly be lead by these human constructs. Though I can’t prove it completely, there is an excellent amount of evidence for my hypothesis while there is no evidence for the god hypothesis. Just as any rational person would agree that Zeus is a human construct and complies with my conclusions and observations, so do all other gods of the past and the most likely the present.
with that being said, this still does not prove there is no god but does help to show why if a person has a belief in a god that the best rational position they can claim is that he is a deist. Due to our long history of gods we are now all atheists toward, it would also be a rational position to be an agnostic or an athiest too.
Unless someone can find a way to validate that they have a direct connection with god to know what he wants, thinks or does, we can never be sure of anything. Also seeing that we’ve had a %100 failure rate in this matter in our past history, it would be best to avoid any conclusion about how he thinks or acts. If a believer choose a deist outlook they are safe from the same pitfalls of the human flaws that lead us to make such poor choice in the past. With our %100 failure rate of the past 2000+ years, it is highly probable that we again would and currently are making the same mistakes and misjudgments as we did in the past. I can’t give a number to that % but I’d guess it is most likely great than 99% that we will.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Congratulations Ben! You’ve managed to somehow tip up the main rock that every moonbat Darwiniac fundamentalist jihadist must have been lurking under. What a fantastic glimpse of the new world order when the Department of People’s Approved Science (revised daily), will be a part of the glorious Socialist Utopian Atheocracy.
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” Albert Einstein
Not that comfort is crucial, but I’m curious how some folks seem to insist that they are comfortable imagining themselves as a hodgepodge of miscellaneous cells and minerals, operating in mindless pursuit of temporary survival, by fortuitous cranial chemical reactions, for no ultimate reason or purpose at all. If that were true, why not copulate indiscriminately, or shoot up a school full of little girls?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
My original post: The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.
What’s really funny is that three evos responded to my post and helped prove me right with their ad hominem:
>
>
>
>
Surely that guy can’t be serious? What test has evolution ever passed? Has it ever been observed? Ever been repeated (in nature)? Ever been replicated in a laboratory? They will give examples of variation and insist it should be called evolution, but that doesn’t make it so.
None of them even addressed my contention that evos have responded to Ben Stein with fangs bared, which they HAVE.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
The detractors in here prove Mr. Stein’s premise. He hints that evolution should be critically examined and the evolulus gnash at him, fangs bared. That is invariably the reaction. It seems as if cowardly evolutionists are so afraid of light being shined on their religious theory that they result to ad hominem insults to frighten off challengers.
What’s really funny is that three evos responded to my post and helped prove me right with their ad hominem:
{{ Teno Groppi’s post right after that at #152 (facile, glib, content-free, short, emotionally appealing }}
{{ I find the tenor of comments here unsurprising. The level of ignorance … }}
{{ If there is a war between religion and science, it is because these intolerant folks }}
{{ Just a few problems with that statement: It’s flat-out wrong. Evolution has been under the microscope for decades, and it’s passed every honest test thrown at it. }}
Surely that guy can’t be serious? What test has evolution ever passed? Has it ever been observed? Ever been repeated (in nature)? Ever been replicated in a laboratory? They will give examples of variation and insist it should be called evolution, but that doesn’t make it so.
None of them even addressed my contention that evos have responded to Ben Stein with fangs bared, which they HAVE.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
The time is long, long overdue for evolutionists to show JUST A LITTLE COMPASSION for those scientists who happen to believe in God and the Bible! The discrimination is severe.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Aw, gee, I’m post 1,060. No one will ever read it.
But, gee, Ben, you sure are funny. You were hilarious in Ferris Bueller, you were hilarious on Win Ben Stein’s money, and on all those commercials. Now you’re funny on Fox talking about Sen. Craig, and you’ve made a funny movie.
You are the consummate comedian, following in the footsteps of Andy Kaufman, playing it straight all along to see who falls for it. Brilliant, I love it.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Who is Botnik?
September 6th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
This is Botnik
September 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Dimensio, don’t you have anything better to do?
September 7th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Self named dimensio is demented. Second class is another example, just one more chance-worshipping Darwimp. Blogs like this teem with them.
It is easy to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
Every now and again my browser is able to negotiate the longest thread in the history of the internet.
Adios again.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 7th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Ben: It is fantastic to read all the responses from all the naturalists, evolutionists, and atheists who cannot take any close examination of their phony perspective. How they scream that their position is scientific thus the world should only listen to them. And then they claim the “Bible” says it is self-authoritative? What have they been smoking?
Thanks for defending the freedom of ideas, perspective and the fact that debate in the public forum can and should take place over these issues. Therefore, ALL evidence can be presented and thus Fascism, or only forcing one point of view of science on everyone, gets a wooden stake through the heart!
September 7th, 2007 at 7:07 am
I am so glad to see that there is someone bold enough to discuss an obvious problem in our educational system in America. I agree with the premise of this film. If one believes in God, they are viewed as less intelligent and “closed minded”, yet the evolutionary theory has SO many flaws and gaps that people are so ready and willing to ignore. I cannot see how anything as amazing as life could have originated out of anything but God, our creator. There may be elements of truth within the modern scientific thought, but there validity is negated by the unwillingness to accept an alternative theory.
Kudos to Mr. Stein for taking a stand!
September 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Wow!! I can’t believe some of the comments I’ve read. For those of you who commented “for” the theory of evolution, I ask you this: Do you like the idea of being randomly selected? Randomly congealed in a pool of stuff? I know this, you would be hacked off if you were getting on a plane and you were “Randomly selected” for “screening”!!! I don’t intend on bringing another issue into this issue but I can’t believe the closed-mindedness of these comments. Am I Pro-Intelligent Design? You better believe it!! But on the other hand, I’m at least willing to listen to the Darwinist Theories… Oh wait, I’ve heard them all my life and guess what… I believe that God created us in his own image (Genesis 1:26) just like His word testifies!!! If He created us, He absolutely needed to create the rules to govern us; and no I don’t mean man made laws, but the laws of physics and the like.
Rest assured I’m not trying to create a flamewar, but think about this; Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess (Romans 14:11). I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of that mighty Judgement Seat…
There are no atheists in foxholes.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:31 am
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
September 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Whatever you call it, vitalism, lifeforce, intelligent organization — most societies have long accepted that there is more to reality than matter in motion. Some religious people’s speculations about it may have been fanciful or naïve, but that is not a valid reason to deny it’s existence. Materialists have recently attempted to banish the concept of intelligent organization from consideration by court order, persuading a federal judge to declare that intelligence can not be considered by the science of evolutionary biology. The public will eventually recognize such oppressive measures as an attempt to protect the religion of materialism. Belief in an immaterial soul does not even require belief in a personal god, much less the concept of biblical creationism.
[url=http://30415.myauthorsite.com/]Questions about materialism[/url]
September 7th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Thank you for having the boldness to step up! As far as your detractors go for the film: They will just have to wait and see like the rest of us!!! Thanks again~! There’s so few things worth seeing in the theater it will be nice to go back again and enjoy myself!
September 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I’m going to try to post, though it doesn’t seem that posts are going through now.
Here’s Kevin Miller, one of the writers of “Expelled”:
–When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces–including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one. IDers are essentially asking the same question as the Darwinists: How did the information get there? What separates them from the Darwinists is that they are willing to consider intelligence as one possible cause. This is not to deny the power of mechanisms like random mutation and natural selection. All the IDers are saying is that such forces are simply inadequate to explain the origin and development of life. Once again, it is not just the IDers who are questioning this. There is huge debate amongst the Darwinists themselves as to which mechanisms are most important and at what level (group, individual, molecular) they operate.–
http://ArtsAndFaith.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=16419&view=findpost&p=156729
This tells us all that we need to know about both ID and about the movie. What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge “Designer”, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for “potential signs of intelligence in nature”.
That is not science, that’s apologetics. This is what Stein is accusing “Big Science” of suppressing, which of course it is suppressing in the realm of science, for the very good reason that insinuating religious presuppositions about God’s role in nature into science is a perversion of the search for explanations in which science engages. It is exactly the kind of perverse injection of religion into science that Galileo opposed, and for which he was persecuted. I guess Stein and the rest just want to bring back the good old days of harming those who won’t accept religion as the adjudicator of science.
Miller is admitting that his religious presuppositions are what drive ID and the whine in the movie, and, for anyone who believes in the integrity of science, he provides the clinching case against both ID and the movie’s false charges of suppression (that is, I don’t deny its suppression in science, I deny that there is anything illegitimate about keeping pseudoscience out of science).
It should (but doesn’t) go without saying that scientists are not unwilling to consider that intelligence could play a role in the development of life. The fact that there is no evidence for this intelligence in evolutionary processes is why the null hypothesis (that intelligence is not involved, save through modern human manipulations) is the working hypothesis in science, and will be up until the point where evidence of intelligence guiding evolution is produced by someone (it is unlikely that IDists could produce such evidence, even were it to exist, for they do almost no science–indicative of how little even they think of ID as actual science). It is grossly unfair to claim that we won’t consider intelligence, since we do in any number of cases, and our complaint against ID is that it merely assumes intelligence without any evidence, a fact that Miller tacitly concedes in the excerpt above.
ID is nothing but religious apologetics, a fact that many IDists deny, but one that Miller and Stein’s movie only demonstrate is the case. Science doesn’t simply assume that God is directing hurricanes and earthquakes to cause death and destruction to humanity, nor does it simply assume that God designed malarial parasites to effectively sicken and kill humans like Behe suggests that he did.
Science looks at the evidence, and sees that malaria organisms (Plasmodium falciparum) show evidence of having non-teleologically evolved, both in the manner of its uncaring attacks on humans and in its genomic information, and thus it accepts that it evolved non-teleologically under the present evidence. Miller and the other IDists have to assume that malaria was designed, then they have to insist that undesign-like features, such as its genome evolved along the constraints predicted by evolutionary theory, are, contrary to all expectations, the result of design.
This they do because from the start they assumed that God was central to the development of life, which they do not similarly assume for the development of hurricanes. Why do they suppose that we ought to accept the one assumption without any evidence, while not accepting the other one, due to its lack of evidence?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 7th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Since when did PZ Myers become a leading Darwinist?!
September 7th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Your continuous rants on this board have established that many of you believe no real science exists to back up any theories to DISPROVE evolution. Forget for a moment that ID hypotheses (that’s all they are) even exist, then accept that there are plenty of people in non-biological disciplines who find evolution HYPOTHESES (that’s all they are) to lack any scientific credibility whatsoever knowing that there are plenty of consistently proven and widely accepted LAWS of science which must be broken repeatedly after their known establishment and existence in history for any hypotheses of evolution to work at all. Many of these also think ID is a fraud, God doesn’t exist, and could care less where they came from. You just won’t hear about them as most “evolution-IS-FACT” lemmings have already jumped over the cliff of biogenesis and are elated to feel the wind in their faces as they are “proving” that they can fly. Many respected scientists are patiently waiting at the top of the cliff knowing that the others will eventually hit the bottom. I welcome this movie, not because I believe ID to be credible, but because I find evolution hypotheses to be laughable.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I see that Glen Davidson and well named Secondclass, both denizens of Elsberry’s “inner sanctum,” “our forum,” “After The Bar Closes,” have both arrived here to dominate the commentary with the usual Darwinian pablum. Neither one of them has ever contributed a positive thought anywhere any more than any other denizen of “Elsberry’s Darwinian Alamo” has icluding Elsberry! Their sole purpose is to denigrate any departure from Darwinian mysticism. P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula is another nasty mouthed, “godless, randomly ejaculating liberal” (his words) who just today found it necessary to describe the President of the United States as “asshole-in-chief.” After the Bar Closes now fosters the use of the F word and has published pornographic images as part of their mindless proceedings To make matters worse, not one of these “nattering nabobs of negativism” (as Spiro Agnew described HIS enemies) has ever published a word in a refereed journal that had anything whatsoever to do with the only matter which is at stake - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution.
Why don’t the fearless leaders of these degenerate enclaves appear here? Why do they only send out their hired goons, their fawning sycophants? I will tell you why. They, like all bullies, are congenital cowards that is why. I have offered to take them on anywhere they like and the only response has always been the same. I have been banned from all their shabby “groupthinks.” Meyers even failed to show his face on a thread he himself had initiated at One Blog A Day! It ran nearly a thousand messages without a word from its arrogant sponsor and initiator, the second biggest bully in cyberspace. I and my ally Martin had a ball there exposing the Darwinian fairy tale with glee ful abandon.
The biggest bully of all is of course DaveScot, actually David Springer of Uncommon Descent who has banned more people than anyone in history including me - twice. He lets critics back in so he can get his rocks off banning them again! What we have today are primarily a couple of armed camps whose sole goal is to destroy one another. Neither faction has ever produced anything tangible that helps us to undertand the great mystery of organic evolution. The ID crowd is trying to force science into a Fundamentalist Christian straight jacket while the other religious fanatics, the chance-worshipping, random-mutation-intoxicated, Darwinian mystics, are busy trying to prove that the whole living world is an accident! They are both full of it right up to their nostrils and with the help of some of the finest scientists of two centuries I am delighted to be making waves. The truth lies elsewhere and I know where that is.
“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 7th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
I have yet to meet a person that would say it isn’t wrong to steal for selfish gain. There are some that say it is ok to steal for survival, but that the real crime is no one would give him a meal or shelter. I heard an evolutionist discribe this as an instinctual social behavior. And yet people steal. In fact, I have yet to meet a person that hasn’t stolen something - even a paper clip from work. So what possible biologicial nich or imperitive does it fill to develop an instinctual behavior to steal and then feel guilty about it? Every person I’ve asked how it feels to be the victim of theft discribes it as being violated. Just the kind of thing you need to build strong social ties.
So if people agree it’s wrong to steal, there must be a standard we are comparing to, a way to know it’s wrong, .
Saying “God did it” is not an end to science but a beginning of discovery and glorifying God through an examination and appriciation of the creation he made us stewards of.
And the devil keeps whispering in our ears the lie that we can judge good from evil, that we know better than God; that we are rightous to pass judgement for the wrongs committed against us; our anger is pure and our revenge is good. That we don’t need each other. That we don’t need God.
That’s not science. That’s the sin of a fallen world. Accept the forgiveness of Christ while you can. God didn’t make this world to last.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Hi Ritchie,
Perhaps I should have clarified, and said, no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors, except those there, but more goes on than ppl know.
Just as Darwinism is hypothesis only, I don’t see why it should be a problem to introduce another idea for students and ppl in general to consider. So what if things suggest a design, what’s the big deal? Why can’t ppl hear about this and make their own decisions, without Darwinians jumping in and being very rude. They don’t have to believe in design, they can continue to think they came from an ooze pool.
I didn’t say free speech during class, just the option of free thinking and being able to ask questions. I can appreciate and understand the curricula in schools. But let’s say for example, it should not be presented as fact, if the fossil record doesn’t support the theory of things evolving. Especially when it’s known by many evolutionists, such as Gould, that this isn’t a fact. It should be stated, “Although there have been fossils found and many are fragments, that it is inconclusive to accurately say one thing evolved into another. That the many fossils found appear fully formed and no changes can be seen.” Something like that. Now, that’s being honest in teaching students.
I had posted about horse evolution in an earlier post, and if this isn’t true as well, then it should not be taught as truth and fact.
If there are statements and data suggesting that DNA was designed and could have in no way evolved, then teach why it appears designed instead. Explaining why it couldn’t have evolved, how complex it is, and so forth.
Life is a two way street, not just one way into Darwinism evolution. To actually believe that everything on this planet and the universe evolved from nothing basically is a little far fetched to believe in the first place.
I appreciate chatting with you Ritchie.
As for Dimensio, I’m not responding, as things seem to go over his head and according to him, everyone is a liar anyhow. Perhaps you should relax and do some fishing. See if you can’t catch that famous Coelacanth.
~M
September 7th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
“The fact that the subject is not debated in scientific journals makes it pretty clear than they are trying to suppress the debante. ”
Your conclusion is not logical. You are ignoring the possibility that those proposing intelligence have simply made no statements deserving to be included in any scientific journals.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Evolution is theory, not hypothesis. “Darwinism” is a pejorative term used by creationists who either do not understand that the theory of evolution has advanced since Darwin’s time, or who know better but use the term anyway as an act of dishonesty.
“I don’t see why it should be a problem to introduce another idea for students and ppl in general to consider.”
People are free to consider whatever they want. The problem is that ID pushers are falsely claiming that Intelligent Design is science, when it is not. That is called “lying”.
“As for Dimensio, I’m not responding, as things seem to go over his head ”
In other words, you’re too much of a coward to admit that you were flat-out wrong about Coelacanth, so you’re arrogantly claiming that I’m “over my head” because I dared to point out that you made a demonstratably false claim.
” and according to him, everyone is a liar anyhow. ”
No, but thanks for lying about me again. I only call people liars when they make demonstratably dishonest claims. You know, like you did.
” Perhaps you should relax and do some fishing. See if you can’t catch that famous Coelacanth.”
What a lovely snide remark that fails, completely, to hide the fact that you made a false claim about Coelacanth and now you’re too much of a coward to own up to it.
You presented a claim against evolution that turned out to be false. When it was debunked, you simply ignored the whole matter. Why should I take someone seriously when they use lies to prop up their claims and then act snide when their lies are called out?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
“I have yet to meet a person that would say it isn’t wrong to steal for selfish gain.”
This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“There are some that say it is ok to steal for survival, but that the real crime is no one would give him a meal or shelter.”
This also has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“I heard an evolutionist discribe this as an instinctual social behavior. And yet people steal.”
Yes, and?
“In fact, I have yet to meet a person that hasn’t stolen something - even a paper clip from work. So what possible biologicial nich or imperitive does it fill to develop an instinctual behavior to steal and then feel guilty about it?”
One where individuals within the population generally have a more successful reproductive success rate when they cooperate as a group rather than act as selfish individuals.
“Every person I’ve asked how it feels to be the victim of theft discribes it as being violated. Just the kind of thing you need to build strong social ties.
So if people agree it’s wrong to steal, there must be a standard we are comparing to, a way to know it’s wrong,.”
Why must there be a standard?
“Saying “God did it” is not an end to science but a beginning of discovery and glorifying God through an examination and appriciation of the creation he made us stewards of.”
Actually, saying “God did it” is, in fact, an end to science. Science is the study of the natural universe exclusively. As any deity is a supernatural entity, claims regarding such deities fall outside of the realm of science. The claims might be valid and accurate, but they are not scientific. “God did it” is not a scientific statement, even if it is completely true that “God” did, in fact, “do it”.
“And the devil keeps whispering in our ears the lie that we can judge good from evil, that we know better than God; that we are rightous to pass judgement for the wrongs committed against us; our anger is pure and our revenge is good. That we don’t need each other. That we don’t need God.”
This is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
“That’s not science. That’s the sin of a fallen world. Accept the forgiveness of Christ while you can. God didn’t make this world to last.”"
This has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. Why are you changing the subject?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I notice, John A. Davison, that you have made absolutely no argument of substance. You have repeatedly asserted that no mechanism has been explained for “past evolution”, when in fact multiple individuals, myself included, have explained the mechanism, and now you engage in shameless ad hominem without even addressing the fact that your claim regarding a mechanism has been answered — apparently you are too much of a coward to face up to your demonstratably false claim — nor do you bother to provide any evidence for your own position.
In other words, you have nothing to offer, so you blow hot air.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“Wow!! I can’t believe some of the comments I’ve read.”
Why?
“For those of you who commented “for” the theory of evolution, I ask you this: Do you like the idea of being randomly selected? Randomly congealed in a pool of stuff?”
Even if this were an accurate representation of the theory of evolution, and it is not, it is irrelevant. Reality is not determined by what people would “like” it to be. You cannot falsify the theory of evolution by first misrepresenting what it states (strawman fallacy) and then declaring that you do not like the implications of your misrepresentation (appeal to consequence fallacy).
“I know this, you would be hacked off if you were getting on a plane and you were “Randomly selected” for “screening”!!!”
Irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.
” I don’t intend on bringing another issue into this issue but I can’t believe the closed-mindedness of these comments.”
You mean because we reject irrational claims and we identify errors in reasoning?
“Am I Pro-Intelligent Design? You better believe it!! But on the other hand, I’m at least willing to listen to the Darwinist Theories…”
That you call them “Darwinist Theories” suggests that you are lying.
” Oh wait, I’ve heard them all my life and guess what… I believe that God created us in his own image (Genesis 1:26) just like His word testifies!!!”
Please reference “His” word and demonstrate that it is, in fact, “His” word. Also explain how you could possibly have actually studied the theory of evolution given your gross misrepresentation of the theory above.
“If He created us, He absolutely needed to create the rules to govern us; and no I don’t mean man made laws, but the laws of physics and the like.”
This is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
“Rest assured I’m not trying to create a flamewar,”
Then why have you posted logical fallacies and irrelevant nonsense?
“but think about this; Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess (Romans 14:11).”
Please justify this assertion.
“I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of that mighty Judgement Seat…”
Your question is based upon an unsupported assertion, and it is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
“There are no atheists in foxholes.”
Atheism is irrelevant to the discussion. However, I feel that I should note that your claim is a lie, and a rather nasty one at that: http://ffrf.org/foxholes/
Why do you feel the need to lie like that?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
” If one believes in God, they are viewed as less intelligent and “closed minded”, yet the evolutionary theory has SO many flaws and gaps that people are so ready and willing to ignore.”
Please explain the relevance of belief in a deity to the theory of evolution, and please demonstrate the existence of “flaws and gaps” in the theory of evolution.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
“Dimensio, don’t you have anything better to do?”
Are you attempting to refute any specific claim, or are you asking this question because you are unable to refute any claim that I have made?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“What test has evolution ever passed?”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
“Has it ever been observed?”
“Theories” are not observed. Mechanisms of theories are observed. Theories carry with them implications that have been observed. The mechanisms of evolution have been observed. Implications such as specific patterns in ERV insertions in DNA across species have been observed.
“Ever been repeated (in nature)? Ever been replicated in a laboratory? They will give examples of variation and insist it should be called evolution, but that doesn’t make it so.”
What is the difference between “variation” and “evolution”. Please be specific.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
“Congratulations Ben! You’ve managed to somehow tip up the main rock that every moonbat Darwiniac fundamentalist jihadist must have been lurking under. What a fantastic glimpse of the new world order when the Department of People’s Approved Science (revised daily), will be a part of the glorious Socialist Utopian Atheocracy.”
I find it amusing that many ID pushers seem to believe that statements such as this, devoid of any specific references of any kind, and completely bereft of any evidence for the pro-ID position, are somehow valid rebuttals to criticisms of their movement and efforts.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“Self named dimensio is demented.”
I guess ad hominem is easier for you to manage than actually addressing reality.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“The time is long, long overdue for evolutionists to show JUST A LITTLE COMPASSION for those scientists who happen to believe in God and the Bible!”
You are suggesting that all who accept evolution do not believe in “God and the Bible”. That is demonstratably false. Please try to argue from premises that are not false.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
“The issue goes beyond our universities as there seems to be a concerted effort by academics, the media, and even some parts of government to stifle freedom of religious expression of any kind in the U.S.”
Gee, and I thought ID proponents claimed that ID wasn’t religious in nature. How, then, could supressing ID be a “stifling” of freedom of religious expression?
The ID pushers who denied that ID is religious in nature weren’t lying, were they?
September 8th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Re the Dawkins quote at the “Playground/Big Science Academy” page (’As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”‘): it’s from the beyondbelief2006 sunday session where Neil deGrasse Tyson asks Dawkins
if his articulately barbed way could be more effective if more sensitive.
Dawkins then tells a tongue-in-cheek anecdote of a former editor of “New Scientist” magazine. You can watch this exchange at YouTube, video ID is uYBFqse7tiU (just replace it in the URL or search for “tyson dawkins”).
If Dawkins really told someone to “shut up”, I’d like to know its original quotation.
September 8th, 2007 at 2:49 am
Hi Marilyn
Biology seriously isn’t as monolithic as all that. There are tons of genetics labs and fossil specimens to work with, and a lot of researchers that don’t get paid particularly well (open up a New Scientist and look in the ads for positions in the back). As someone once said of why the “moon landing hoax” people were silly, “if you want to make a hoax, don’t have it catered”.
Cosmology can run into trouble for one simple reason: it has axioms, and those axioms are contestable. One seems to be reliance on Einstein’s *general* (not the well-tested special) relativity since the 1930s (even Hoyle’s hypotheses start from general relativity), and the geometrical meaning of it in particular.
The original evolutionary hypotheses, on the other hand, arose from finding common threads to a lot of biological facts recorded from even much earlier than 1850.
Every fossil and living organism has had the chance to totally upset the apple cart. Few knew about Mendel’s pea-breeding work, and one thing people thought couldn’t work in Darwin’s particular explanation is that they figured that whatever variations there were would get lost because, like water and wine, you’d mix them together and they would remain forever mixed. If that had been true of genes, it’s true, the explanation would have failed right there and then. We know of course that genes are more or less discrete.
To me, the biggest test evolutionary theory passed was when we started being able to read pieces of DNA. If lion DNA was more similar to crocodile DNA than it was to dog DNA, that would have been *game over*. Seriously.
When they talk about DNA similarity, please realize that this isn’t just a “similar DNA for similar functions” type of similarity. There are a few other kinds of similarity going on:
You may (or may not!) have heard that there are often quite a few DNA spellings for the same amino acid. DNA exhibits what look to be inherited different spellings.
It’s exactly like the sort of thing you find in old manually-copied manuscripts. If a word is spelled OEO (good old Ancient Greek with no spaces, that) in a whole bunch of manuscripts and THEO in another bunch, you might figure that someone made a spelling error or change and other copyists copied it. Just one spelling difference can’t tell you who came first, though, but others *can*, and this can imply a whole family tree of copied manuscripts.
You can never be *totally* sure who made the change and who copied it, and you’ll find that same argument made in spots when biologists put together particular “branches of life”. If you ever see one of these little “branches of life” in passing in a biology article or paper, you’ll see numbers next to each branch. The 100s aren’t quite ever 100s, but it’s just a measure of how sure you can be about which came first. “Did A split off from B and C or did C split off from A and B” - biologists can argue those branches all day long.
(Let’s see if putting a link in here works: a ‘likelihood’ tree)
Similar to the fact that similar “spelling errors” show up in more related creatures, genes are more often in the same positions relative to each other in more related creatures.
You can also do a really quick kind of match-up between DNA, simply based on the way those spelling errors and similar positions all work. If you get DNA from two creatures split apart with a little bit of heat and then let them cool down and just try to zip up with each other, no, you don’t get things from the Isle of Dr. Moreau (flippant, sorry
), but you can tell how related they are from well they zip together.
That brings me to fossils (at last, I know!). A lot of the “family tree” conjectured for life on earth was made from anatomy studies of dead creatures and fossils. There were a few surprises (like the relation of horseshoe crabs to spiders) but a lot of confirmations and clearing up of relationships (which continues to this day) when genetic analysis came along.
I’ve read some Gould. Some nice writing in spots, though he does… meander (I swear his books should be half the size
) I think I know what you’re referring to in the first part of your paraphrase there, but the second part is not Gould at all.
One thing to remember is that fossils are often from creatures that died badly. Any area that is a rich fossil bed, especially if it’s shale (fossilized mud), meant a pile of things died. Also, there are plenty of other potential branches of creatures that branched off and then went extinct (North American elephant relatives, for example).
That means that, all things being equal, we’re probably seeing more creatures that were a little bit “off the branch”, cousins rather than parents, in the same way that people who stayed in Pompeii during the eruption so long ago left rather fewer descendants.
Knowing some of Gould’s views, I rather think that’s what he meant by “Although there have been fossils found and many are fragments, that it is inconclusive to accurately say one thing evolved into another.”
We’re basically left with snapshots of things that died in the past in mud and deltas that kept being buried until we got to them and dug them up.
That said, we can’t say the fossil record *doesn’t* support evolution, because it really seems to. There are layers below which there are no deciduous trees, or flowers, or bony fish. It’s not sorted by how fast things could run or by body size (yes, larger things appear higher in the layers, but there are smaller things in those layers, too), but by features.
I’ve seen some sites make much ado of the fact that there are fish fossils in mountains, or that there are some layers upside down, but they insultingly ignore the most basic of geology: folding. Folding’s real. Oil and gas folks love folding - that’s often where oil and gas get trapped. Follow a mountainous fish layer down the slope, and you will see what it disappears under, if it is indeed not just from freshwater fish or an inland sea.
Apart from quickly-changing viruses, all the life we know is based on DNA. Anything that could have been based on a cousin to DNA is long gone, if indeed that was the way it happened. Despite some claims to the contrary, DNA can very well have evolved, but evolutionary theories say nothing before this point. However, it could also have dropped from the sky (panspermia) or been placed here. Or, something simpler or different than DNA could have been dropped or placed here as a starter. As it stands, though, right now we have absolutely no way to tell, and intelligent design can’t help here, because it’s bad math to apply. We can’t use the “tornado in a junkyard making a 767″ analogy if we don’t actually know where the 767 came from in the first place (never mind that 767’s don’t reproduce… but when they do, I want one!)
When people go off and do Urey-Miller experiments or talk about RNA World, please be assured that those are the realm of conjecture. It’s not about how it happened, but how it *could* happen.
Remember too that Big Bang Theory and evolution are entirely separate. As a matter of fact, I’ve got to say that some of the weirdest biological assertions come from physicists… I don’t know why!
I was going to go into some of the sub-disciplines of evolutionary theory (it’s not a monolith) and neat discoveries (like common neuron components also found in sponges, and the way PAHs were found by NASA to survive supernovas), but then I realized I’ve probably violated some sort of Motor-mouth Treaty already *grin*
I appreciate the chat, too, Marilyn
Cheers!
September 8th, 2007 at 2:54 am
(Just to clarify, when I was talking about biology not being a monolith like that, it’s that poor pay and lots of participants don’t really prevent anyone from squealing if there’s really a hoax going on, engendering the likelihood of a big biology hoax being correspondingly low, just as the likelihood of the moon landing with all its contractors and participants being a hoax is exceedingly low, silly Fox specials notwithstanding)
September 8th, 2007 at 3:28 am
From, Jacob Evilsizor
“You are not even worth debating, because you add absolutely no intellectual reciprocation in your short, grammatically incorrect retorts. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are either not accustomed to speaking the English language, or are in actuality a child. This is not to sound mean, but because you seem to want to pontificate about things outside of your ability to comprehend, I think it is fair to call you out on them.”
Sweet evil Jesus. Talk about ad homin. I totally understand the concept of Intelligent design. But you don’t under stand the concept of science. You continue to blab out babble and expect people who actually do real science to listen to you propaganda? Think again. I will continue to do and use real science to heal the sick. Not assumption of your dogmatic claims. Intelligent Design does noting for understanding the natural world. NOTHING.
Your assumptions cannot be measured. It cant be used.
I bet you even think evolution deals with the origin of life.
Posting Answer in Genesis is not scientific research it dogma. Their goal is to push religion into science.
You claim that Intelligent Design is science but you are willing to redefine science to push your claim. Pretty unethical and disingenuous.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Oh Jacaob,
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/grist_for_the_e.html
“Dembski’s “Explanatory Filter” (EF) claims to be a reliable technique for detecting design. To date, the EF is the only method presented by the “science” of ID. How well does it do? Nobody knows. It has been applied precisely once, by Dembski in his book No Free Lunch. And that application was a dismal failure.
Before going into the reasons that the EF is a psuedo-algorithm, I’d like to present an example of what Dawkins calls a “designoid,” that is, something that appears designed but isn’t. A “false positive” for the EF, if you will.”
Where exactly can I find this controversy again?
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/03/where_exactly_c.html
“The battle-cry of the IDists, “teach the controversy!” strongly presupposes that there is a controversy worthy of teaching. It is true that there is a controversy in evolutionary biology, in the political sense. But this is not what legal scholars DeWolf (et al.) mean when they use the term. They would like to convince the majority of citizens (or the minority that sit on school boards) that this is an issue of fairness. According to the truism there are two sides to every coin, why not “teach the controversy” and let the students make reasoned opinions for themselves? Why not use “the controversy” to teach about the process of science?
The best reason not to teach the “origins controversy” is that it simply is nowhere to be found. Genuine scientific controversies — the important and useful ones — take up a huge volume of space in the scientific literature. Even the controversies sparked by wrong ideas can be tracked as they generate discussion among the members of the scientific community. If no-one is talking about it, it’s not controversial.”
September 8th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Go Ben.
The energetic responses of evolutionists posted here is fascinating, and, ironically, supports the premise of the movie. (Or at least the premise of the tagline.)
I just don’t get it. Evolution is not a critical cog in the great machine of Science, it is merely a pennant on the atheist wing.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:24 am
It is hard to believe isn’t it? I mean this display of living proof that man is a victim of his prescribed fate to remain immune to reason and the indisputable facts revealed by the experimental laboratory and the fossil record. There is no question that evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and is no longer in creative operation. All we see are the products of a long past evolution which is terminating with mass extinction. In the past the extinction was always coincident with a new wave of creativity, what Otto Schindewolf called “typogenesis.” Today we see only his “typostasis” and “typolysis.” There hasn’t been a new genus in 2 million years and, in my opinion, not a new verifiable species in historical times. Just as ontogeny terminates irreversibly with the death of the individual, so phylogeny is terminating with the extinction of the species. Get used to it and enjoy yourselves as I do, exposing intellectual losers wherever they may surface! As the song goes -
“Enjoy youself, it’s later than you think.”
Furthermore, referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
The whole production was planned from beginning to end and the end is now.
“La commedia e finita.”
Pagliacci
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 8th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Contrary to what materialists would like you to believe, intelligent design has nothing to do with religion. True, a materialist view of the universe would deny any possible role for a deity. The concept of intelligent organization allows the possibility — JUST THE POSSIBILITY — of participation by a deity. However, one doesn‘t have to even believe in a personal god to believe in the reality of intelligence. Certainly there is nothing supernatural about our own intelligence, and why should we regard an intelligence intrinsic to living systems as supernatural? One can recognize the world as intelligently organized without believing a deity was involved.
Are living organisms intelligently organized? Or are they an meaningless accumulation of accidents? Do Hox genes organize living processes intelligently and purposefully, or is it an accidental, mechanical process? If morphic fields are responsible, do they regulate living processes intelligently and purposefully? Or do morphic fields operate in a mechanical, purposeless manner? If so, what are the mechanics? Regardless of your answer, and certainly materialists are entitled to their view, these questions deserve to be asked. What right do materialists have to insist that none but the materialist view be considered?
So far the only mechanical evolutionary process suggested by materialists is that “natural selection” (producing fewer offspring) somehow organizes random genetic accidents into complex biological systems. Should the courts be allowed force all of us to pay lip service to that ridiculous explanation?
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
September 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Stay strong Ben!! Looks like 80% of these comments are coming from the brainwashed angry atheistic evolutionary mob. The same bunch that blame belief in God on every evil in the world and at the same time deny there is such a thing as good and evil. They can’t even admit that the only reason why they can’t open their ears and minds to at least CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY of a creator.. is because they’d rather not have morality be in their vocabulary. What’s funniest to me is that the respect that they once had for Ben Stein as the funny genius from saved by the bell and visine (lol..jk) is COMPLETELY GONE. All you angry atheists seriously think all of a sudden that Ben Stein’s a bonehead! That’s the major point of this documentary. You’ve been so indoctrinated with the supposed “infallible truth” of evolution that anything that comes against it is completely ludricrous. Just like most of you aren’t idiots..neither are we (IDers/creationists). We simply say to YOU that you’ve never properly examined the other side and then your rebuttal is that we just have all our facts wrong and we don’t understand because we’re a bunch of right wing idiots. All you do is say “shut up” over and over in 80 million different ways–that’s all your arguments come down to.
September 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Note to Nullifidian. Your claim hat “Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy for, among other things, speculating that humans evolved from non-human ancestors” is greatly missleading. The common belief that Bruno was a martyr for science is historically inaccurate. University of Wisconsin science historian Ron Numbers, in a PBS interview on his research about Galileo stated that, not only is there “no reason to believe that Galileo at any point faced the threat of death,” but there “was never any indication in the court records of death being a possible penalty, and no other scientists were put to death for their scientific views”. In answer to the question: “Is it the case then that there have been no scientists killed for their scientific views?” Numbers replied: “I can think of no scientist who ever lost his life for his scientific views”. None. Angelo Mercati wrote that
Bruno, a runaway Dominican friar, had long ceased to believe in Christianity before he was imprisoned by the Roman Inquisition. His cosmological opinions, borrowed … from Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, were never questioned. To make him a martyr of science, as some have done, is merely silly, as he never engaged in any kind of scientific activity.
Edward Peters added that the Galileo and Bruno cases became so widely publicized that they
shaped much of the early social and cultural self-perception of modern scientists. The execution in Rome of Giordano Bruno in 1600 and the penance imposed on Galileo …. in 1633 constituted the core of … the myth of the martyrology of science and the role of the Church, specifically The Inquisition, in creating martyrs of science and opposing the progress of scientific discovery. … the names of Bruno and Galileo were frequently linked and the cause for which they both suffered was identified as the cause of reason and science, opposed to superstition and obscurantism, represented by theologians and directed by The Inquisition.
From a modern vantage point, what Bruno did does not in any way justify either the actions of the state or the Inquisition. Much of Bruno’s fame and influence resulted from the way he met his end, creating both sympathy and curiosity about him. Bruno read widely and synthesized what he read to produce many ideas, some of which can be interpreted as providing insight to scientific ideas accepted today, but much that he wrote was clearly foolish. If he had died a natural death his ideas and writings may well have been buried in history, of interest to no one. His inglorious death made him a martyr, even a hero, to many. The event was seized upon by the anticlerical movement among others to discredit the Catholic church. Many myths still exist about Bruno, including that Giordano Bruno was the first martyr for science, is not supported by history. Read Timothy Moy. “Science, Religion, and the Galileo Affair.” Skeptical Inquirer, 25(5):43-49, Sept.-Oct. 2001.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Glenn Davidson:
I must respecfully challenge your contention that creation science and intelligent design are equivalent.
To better appreciate the differences, I submit to you an interesting historical perspective of both movements.
Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature. At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand. What has always mattered in this discussion is in which direction the investigation proceeds. Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context; or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be? If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based.
Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years. We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm. Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based. By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle, Aquinas, Paley, and others. Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based.
Obviously, Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones III and others miss the point. CS and ID are simply the latest manifestations of each tradition. I therefore ask you to reconsider your point that the the two are synomymous, either theoretically or pragmatically.
September 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Let me start by saying thanks - to God - for sanctifying someone to the task of glorifying you in video documentary. I just hope that it is a level of scholarship that is predicated by the subject matter.
With that out of the way, I would like to challenge all of you evolutionists with the same challeng you made to I.D.ers You asked basically what contribution ID has made to the scientific community. I’ll answer and ID has assisted the Scientific community with Morals.
Now, how has evolution lead to a breakthrough in the scientific community? Who has it helped out? WHat amazing discoveries did evolution lead to and what does it predict in the future that will assist us in more science?
The fact is this: Evolution and Intelligent Design are both neither scientific. They are both “MetaPhysic”. There’s a new word for most of you, but it simply means “World-View” Or what belief you stand on that allows you to understand the world. It’s like a filter that you sift every experience through. Therefore, if you have the wrong filter, you miss out on a lot of what the world really is.
Evolution can not be proven. The only way to prove evolution is to watch it occur, and even then you don’t prove that it has always happened. You only show that it happened now. You could infer that because it happened once, then it is more likely that it happened in the past, but that’s it.
Just like Intelligent design can’t be proven. Asking someone to prove intelligent design is the logic fallacy of “Ad-ignorantium”. Basically speaking, it is the fallacy that if you can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist. Well, 200 years ago, we couldn’t prove that flight was possible (this is just an analogy, please don’t try to pick it apart). However, after time we could prove it. Just because we didn’t prove it then, didn’t mean that it didn’t exist. There was a lot of things pointing to it, but it was just out of scientific reach. The philosophers (some of them) already knew it was possible to fly, it was just out of the reach of the scientists.
So, with that said, You cannot say, “Evolution is scientifically backed and I.D. isn’t.” Rather, you have to say, “I view the scientific world through the lense of Evolution while you view the scientific world through the lense of Intelligent Design, but we both have the same science to look at.”
So, what does the science actually point towards? Well, with the principle of Okam’s razor, it’s alot more likely that there is a God, but that’s another philosophical debate that I don’t have time for because I’m slightly late for a meating.
Hope this helps someone out there. God bless you all.
Grace and Peace
Brother Mike
September 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Ben, I admire you for your willingness to go against the elitists who are trying to deny evidence of an intelligence behind creation. I agree with you that honest inquiry is being subverted by bullies in the scientific field, in academics and in the media. Anyone with a truly open mind who has studied the scientific evidence must come to the realization that it is mathematically and biologically impossible for the universe to have come about by blind chance. You’d have to either be a fool to believe it or be dishonest with yourself.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Finally there will be a can of worms opened over this whole issue. Finally it will hit the big screen that there are Phd scientists with research and evidence to support intelligent design. The brainwashing in favor of evolution being the only interpretation of the observable evidence has gone on long enough. To believe evolution takes as much faith as ID. The viscious comments against you and your project show that this is a form of religious fanatacism. What one does with God is one’s religion and the atheistic evulutionary worldview is the only religion that has been allowed in the scientific circles for the past generation. Truth can sometimes be an unwelcome intrusion into our lives but fear to examine it will keep us in the dark and under control.
Bravo, Ben! I salute you!
September 8th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Basically, everyone who has ever dealt with John A. Davison ignores him as far as possible, for he never discusses the issues, rather he engages in ad hominems and attacks. He alternately whines about being excluded from just about every forum, and brags about it, likening himself to Luther and others who were genuinely persecuted (unlike that miserable old man).
IOW, he wasn’t eased out of his job at the University of Vermont for nothing. Being a crank, a peddler of unsupportable ideas, and a genuine pain in the butt to anyone who cares about truth, science, philosophy (he really shows his ignorance when he maligns philosophy, but then he also does it when he pretends to discuss science as well), he mostly inflicts himself onto any forums that haven’t banned him for bad behavior, trying to act as if his credentials set him above all who discuss the issues competently.
He wrote this a few days back:
–I am obviously wasting my tme here. Adios–
Yes, since he only has puffery and hatred for those who do better than he does, he is wasting his, and our, time here. Of course he doesn’t really leave, since he has nothing to do but to inflict his spite of others on the web. On many forums I’d ignore his dishonest attack upon me, however, since many people here don’t already know what a miserable maligning old crank he is, I feel that this once I had better point out what he is, and just how wrong his various falsehoods are.
–I see that Glen Davidson and well named Secondclass, both denizens of Elsberry’s “inner sanctum,” “our forum,” “After The Bar Closes,”–
Good grief, the last time I addressed Elsberry it was in anger, ripping into the way he was twisting what I had written on AtBC (After the Bar Closes). Well, I don’t know that I was actually angry, but because I didn’t find his answer to be direct or honest, I could hardly write with equanimity. I rarely bother to post anything on AtBC any more, because of the lack of decency of several people there, although decent people do post there.
No matter that JAD (John A. Davison is often referred to as JAD, and far less flattering terms as well) doesn’t know of what he writes, he has rarely if ever been deterred by mere truth on these forums. This might give you the idea of why even IDists ban him (though it’s true that it takes very little to be banned from Dembski’s forum), often more quickly than do the evolution forums. I should add that both Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula took a lot of abuse from this useless braggart and waste of posting space, before they finally banned him for his many offenses.
–have both arrived here to dominate the commentary with the usual Darwinian pablum.–
Just the usual smear from this old bigoted man. He can’t answer what we say, he just calls it “pablum”, flinging his own spite in return for my careful arguments and considered evidence.
–Neither one of them has ever contributed a positive thought anywhere any more than any other denizen of “Elsberry’s Darwinian Alamo” has icluding Elsberry!–
JAD’s good at one thing—projection. Because he never contributes anything of worth or intelligence, he has to claim that we do not. It’s a very filmy and transparent bit of nonsense, but it’s the usual with him (look him up on the web if you don’t believe me).
I wrote quite substantial arguments in posts #389, #1031, #1065, and #1090 brought up pretty good evidence that one of the writer’s of the film is engaged in apologetics, which apparently is something he doesn’t even distinguish from science. Those aren’t the only substantive posts by me, but I think they’re the best. JAD can’t come up with anything intelligent in response, so he just uses the smears and evil that typically get him thrown out of forums.
–Their sole purpose is to denigrate any departure from Darwinian mysticism.–
A very simplistic falsehood. You really wouldn’t think that JAD had been a professor once, given his lack of concern for making any kind of reasonable statement.
–P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula is another nasty mouthed, “godless, randomly ejaculating liberal” (his words) who just today found it necessary to describe the President of the United States as “asshole-in-chief.”–
Given JAD’s general lack of substantive discourse, or use of evidence, it isn’t surprising if he would include us in with PZ Myers, with whom I have had fairly strong disagreements several times, usually because was often quite intolerant of our (many of us) tolerance of religion. He seems to have calmed down on that score, at least, though I’d continue to disagree with him on a number of issues (not on Pharyngula, though, since my pro-life tendencies and dislike of both parties would indeed not be well tolerated there).
–After the Bar Closes now fosters the use of the F word
and has published pornographic images as part of their mindless proceedings–
Spammers have put pornographic images on AtBC. I am not aware of any truly pornographic images being allowed by the management.
I believe that the F word is tolerated on AtBC, however as usual the old muttering puritan JAD can’t actually bother to characterize it correctly, rather claiming that they “foster” it. Even if I call him a puritan, don’t ever suppose that JAD keeps his language clean on the internet. He doesn’t, he’s about as hypocritical as he is void of good arguments and honest characterizations of his opponents.
–To make matters worse, not one of these “nattering nabobs of negativism” (as Spiro Agnew described HIS enemies) has ever published a word in a refereed journal that had anything whatsoever to do with the only matter which is at stake - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution.–
Why yes, we have never published anything with regard to his crank ideas. However, that is a plus.
–Why don’t the fearless leaders of these degenerate enclaves appear here?–
Oooh, the old wretch can smear. Wow, he can’t write a single intelligent argument in favor of his claims, but he is as negative as he projects us as being.
–Why do they only send out their hired goons, their fawning sycophants?–
What a pack of lies JAD can put into a single “question”. I don’t “fawn” on any of these guys, since I have my own knowledge which I think they’d do well to adopt if they can. I’ve never been a sycophant of anybody, which no doubt is why I’ve clashed with both PZ and Elsberry. And hired? If so, they’re extremely behind on their payments.
Well, you see why JAD is persona non grata almost everywhere. Not a single charge is either backed up or even true in anything but the most partial sense (except he’s close to right about Dave Springer). I’d like to suggest that he’s typical of IDists, but as poorly as I think of the IDists with whom I’ve had discussions, I don’t think any of the prominent IDists have quite the same level of low manners and integrity that JAD has.
–I will tell you why. They, like all bullies, are congenital cowards that is why. I have offered to take them on anywhere they like and the only response has always been the same.–
Actually, many of the forum denizens have tried to engage JAD, but he always resorts to insults at least after the first round or two.
–I have been banned from all their shabby “groupthinks.” Meyers even failed to show his face on a thread he himself had initiated at One Blog A Day!–
JAD has published his crank nonsense in a few poorly regarded journals, and has nothing even to present except his pathetic quotations and his insistence that one isn’t even allowed to question whether or not God made life. There’d have to be something to his ideas in order to discuss them, which is no doubt why JAD can never manage more than a few posts before showing his true colors, like the rank and hateful nonsense in this, his latest post (note that I never attacked him).
–It ran nearly a thousand messages without a word from its arrogant sponsor and initiator, the second biggest bully in cyberspace. I and my ally Martin had a ball there exposing the Darwinian fairy tale with glee ful abandon.–
Yes, they never do win, but always declare victory. They seem not to have any sense of what would count as evidence in science.
–The biggest bully of all is of course DaveScot, actually David Springer of Uncommon Descent who has banned more people than anyone in history including me - twice.–
Wow, I didn’t expect to agree with this particular bully, JAD, at all, but he’s more or less correct about David Springer (JAD thinks he’s clever when he calls him Spravid Dinger, but he avoided that sad little attempt at humor here). One should never forget, though, that David Springer was operating UD (Uncommon Descent) for William Dembski for a long time, censoring in his name. UD is barely less oppressive than it was under Springer now, though.
–He lets critics back in so he can get his rocks off banning them again! What we have today are primarily a couple of armed camps whose sole goal is to destroy one another. Neither faction has ever produced anything tangible that helps us to undertand the great mystery of organic evolution.–
Let’s see, who is one of those never writing anything of any substance on this thread? Why, it’s JAD. And instead of addressing what I wrote, he claims that I didn’t write anything. It’s another reason why he ends up banned, he has nothing with which to respond, thus his attacks upon others to try to cover up his vacuousness.
–The ID crowd is trying to force science into a Fundamentalist Christian straight jacket while the other religious fanatics, the chance-worshipping, random-mutation-intoxicated, Darwinian mystics, are busy trying to prove that the whole living world is an accident!–
See, he can’t even make a sensible argument against ID. Then all he has against us is his tired old list of falsehoods. He really is a bore.
–They are both full of it right up to their nostrils and with the help of some of the finest scientists of two centuries I am delighted to be making waves. The truth lies elsewhere and I know where that is.–
JAD spent half of this thread trying to suck up to Ben Stein and proclaiming his superiority over everyone else, without, of course, any sort of evidence or intelligent argumentation. Then he claimed to be leaving, only coming back to tell of how he’s such a martyr, the sole possessor of the mysteries of life, and better than those of us who actually discussed evidence and made intelligent observations. Anything substantive? No, and that’s also true of his “papers” in crank journals, plus his entire modus operandi on the web. He can’t even manage his own blogs, each of which only has one extremely long thread, most of the comments being his own pitiful whining. When they become unmanageable, he starts another blog, unless he’s quit blogging altogether by now (might as well, since people learn to stay away from his insults and vacuous nonsense).
Is there anything he can do competently any more? I haven’t seen it.
–“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali–
JAD can’t make an “argument” without some wretched quotation pulled out of Bartlett’s or some other common source, or, of course, projecting his vacuousness and spite onto others. If you’re able to do anything but brag and spit, JAD, try for once to answer the questions that those of us who are intellectuals brought up.
–I love it so!–
Oh yeah, it’s an old phrase by an old forgotten (except insofar as he can project his hatred on the web) crank, apparently made to show that he’s as unimaginative linguistically as he is scientifically.
–“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison–
He loves to quote himself, I suppose because no one else quotes him. His ideas are as poorly thought out as Behe’s are, but he has no following, nor anything that makes his ideas more credible or more attractive than ID is.
He rants, uses his tired phrases and empty labels, and never makes a reasonable argument in response to anybody. This is why this will probably be the only time that I will respond to him on this thread. He’s exposed himself for the vacant rambling hateful old person that he is, and I’ve pointed out many of his falsehoods. So that if anybody reading this thread ever believes a thing he says, I say that such a person is welcome to take ranting for intellection.
The good thing about his showing up with the same hate, lack of manners, and lack of substance, is that he becomes even less believable to ever more people. For, he is a danger only to those who mistake him for a reasonable and forthright person.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 8th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
John A. Davison Says(September 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm ):
– I see that Glen Davidson and well named Secondclass, both denizens of Elsberry’s “inner sanctum,” “our forum,” “After The Bar Closes,” have both arrived here to dominate the commentary with the usual Darwinian pablum. Neither one of them has ever contributed a positive thought anywhere any more than any other denizen of “Elsberry’s Darwinian Alamo” has icluding Elsberry! Their sole purpose is to denigrate any departure from Darwinian mysticism. P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula is another nasty mouthed, “godless, randomly ejaculating liberal” (his words) –
Wesley “Ding” Elsberry and Sleazy PZ Myers arbitrary censor comments and commenters on their blogs. They have no credibility.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Thank you Larry for a note of sanity.
As for Glen Davidson, incidentally a regular at After The Bar Closes, aka Elsberry’s Alamo, I wonder where I might find his publications dealing with the only matter which has ever been in question - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution, an evolution no longer in progress. While I am blissfully ignorant of Davidson’s productivity, I am willing to bet some serious money that he has published absolutely nothing on that subject, and quite possibly on any other subject relating to the great mystery of organic evolution. Neither have Myers or Elsberry. Only Dawkins even thinks he has - but of course he hasn’t! Well I have and so did all my sources, among the greatet scientists of two centuries. Furthermore, not one of us was a religious fanatic or a flaming atheist.
And so, I now ask Glen Davidson to present his curriculum vitae, as I have presented mine, so that all can compare our relative contributions to the two greatest and closely related mysteries in all of science - ontogeny and phylogeny.
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
I have just performed an experiment and now await the results. That is what real scientists do don’t you know. I think 24 hours should be sufficient time for a response. It is now 7:27 EST here in Vermont.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 9th, 2007 at 6:39 am
Incidentally, according to his profile, Glen Davidson averages .39 posts per day at After The Bar Closes.
I love it so!
September 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Oh excuse me. That .39 posts per day includes all of Panda’s Pathetic Pollex (PPP) one of the last surviving bastions of “Darwimpian mysticism.”
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
September 9th, 2007 at 10:29 am
It is not a question of whether evolution happened. Everyone knows life has changed over time. It is also not a question of whether RM&NS {the notion that “natural selection” is capable of organizing a series of genetic accidents into complex biological systems) is an adequate explanation of evolution. The real question being addressed is academic freedom. Are scientists free to question RM&NS? Ben is pointing out what happens to those scientists who dare to question orthodoxy. Where are the debates in the scientific journals over the adequacy of materialistic formulas to explain living processes? Richard Sternberg allowed one such paper to be published, and look what happened to him. One well publicized example is enough to make all other academics who values their careers to toe the line.
[url=30145.myauthorsite.com/]Questions about Materialism[/url]
September 9th, 2007 at 11:27 am
@ Glen Davidson comment #1122
Glen, Glen, Glen…
I thought everyone realised by now that (retired associate) Professor Davison is a loki troll. You are missing the joke.
@ Larry
How’s the Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers going?
September 9th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
” Anyone with a truly open mind who has studied the scientific evidence must come to the realization that it is mathematically and biologically impossible for the universe to have come about by blind chance. ”
Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Want positive proof that Intelligent Design is true and that Darwinian evolution is a lie? The testimony of 23 expert witnesses at the Kansas Science hearings prove it.
Order your 2-hour DVD on this historic 4-day event, titled, “TEACHING ORIGINS OBJECTIVELY.”
Send $20.00 to:
New Liberty Videos
P.O. Box 25662
Shawnee Mission, KS 66225-5662
September 9th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“With that out of the way, I would like to challenge all of you evolutionists with the same challeng you made to I.D.ers You asked basically what contribution ID has made to the scientific community. I’ll answer and ID has assisted the Scientific community with Morals.”
Please explain this assertion. How has “Intelligent Design” assisted the “Scientific community” with “Morals”. On its face, your assertion is wholly unsupported and makes no logical sense.
“Now, how has evolution lead to a breakthrough in the scientific community? Who has it helped out? WHat amazing discoveries did evolution lead to and what does it predict in the future that will assist us in more science?”
Ask the pharmaceutical industry. Also note that evolution has been useful for predicting the locations of specific fossil specimens.
“The fact is this: Evolution and Intelligent Design are both neither scientific.”
You are incorrect. While “Intelligent Design” is not scientific, evolution is, in fact, scientific.
“They are both “MetaPhysic”. There’s a new word for most of you, but it simply means “World-View” Or what belief you stand on that allows you to understand the world.”
You are grossly oversimplifying the nature of evolution and the nature of science. All of science provides a framework for better understanding some aspect of the universe. The theory of evolution is no different in that regard than any other scientific theory.
“It’s like a filter that you sift every experience through. Therefore, if you have the wrong filter, you miss out on a lot of what the world really is.”
Your assertions have no justification, and thus carry no weight.
“Evolution can not be proven.”
Nothing in science is ever proven. Your statement is semantically meaningless.
“The only way to prove evolution is to watch it occur, and even then you don’t prove that it has always happened.”
This would not “prove” evolution. This would provide observations, data points, that could be used to support the theory of evolution, modify the theory of evolution or falsify the theory of evolution. Thus far, data points of the third type have yet to be observed. Many data points of the first and second type have been observed. This is true of all scientific disciplines. Your statements demonstrate only that you are wholly ignorant of the means by which scientific inquiry operates.
“You only show that it happened now. You could infer that because it happened once, then it is more likely that it happened in the past, but that’s it. ”
The fundamental axiom of science is that the basic properties of the natural universe do not change over time and have always applied. You are attempting to argue that evolution is not scientific because it is studied in the light of the fundamental axiom of science. Your reasoning is not logical.
“Just like Intelligent design can’t be proven.”
The objection to Intelligent Design is not a result of it being unprovable.
“Asking someone to prove intelligent design is the logic fallacy of “Ad-ignorantium”. Basically speaking, it is the fallacy that if you can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist.”
No one uses this argument in approaching intelligent design. You either have not studied the objections to intelligent design or you are not being honest.
“Well, 200 years ago, we couldn’t prove that flight was possible (this is just an analogy, please don’t try to pick it apart). However, after time we could prove it.”
False analogy. Intelligent Design is a proposed explanation for observations. The possibility of flight is a data point, not an explanation.
“Just because we didn’t prove it then, didn’t mean that t didn’t exist.”
Irrelevant. Intelligent Design fails at science for failing to meet specific criteria. It is not falsifiable. It has no positive evidence. There are no justified tests for it.
That it cannot be proven has no bearing on its validity as science.
“There was a lot of things pointing to it, but it was just out of scientific reach. The philosophers (some of them) already knew it was possible to fly, it was just out of the reach of the scientists.”
Your analogy is meaningless, as you are comparing two different types of concepts.
“So, with that said, You cannot say, “Evolution is scientifically backed and I.D. isn’t.””
Actually, I can. The theory of evolution has multiple lines of supporting evidence, has yeilded useful predictions and has an established falsification criteria. Intelligent Design does not.
“Rather, you have to say, “I view the scientific world through the lense of Evolution while you view the scientific world through the lense of Intelligent Design, but we both have the same science to look at.” ”
You are misrepresenting the debate. The thery of evolution has scientific backing. Intelligent Design does not. The are not a means of “viewing the scientific world”, they are attempts at explaining observed events. One explanation follows the scientific method, the other does not. It is more accurate to say that an individual views the explanation of biodiversity through a scientific lens while another does not.
“So, what does the science actually point towards? Well, with the principle of Okam’s razor, it’s alot more likely that there is a God, but that’s another philosophical debate that I don’t have time for because I’m slightly late for a meating. ”
In other words, you wanted to make an irrelevant assertion for which you have no evidence. You do not even specify the specific deity, out of the thousands of such entities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, to which you refer, and you certainly do not explain what relevance this particular “God” has to do with a discussion of evolution and Intelligent Design.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Glen Davidson
Perhaps you missed my post #1118 about the difference between creation science and intelligent design. I was hoping that you could respond to it, since you seem to labor under the misconception that the two approaches are similar. Obviously, Judge Jones III and Barbara Forrest are not bright enough to make the necessary distinctions. I have higher hopes for you.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“Stay strong Ben!! Looks like 80% of these comments are coming from the brainwashed angry atheistic evolutionary mob. ”
The cardinal lie of the creationist: the dishonest claim that all who accept evolution and reject “Intelligent Design” as science are atheists.
No matter how often their claim is exposed as a lie, creationists keep coming back with this utterly shameless piece of dishonesty.
Why do creationists repeat this lie over and over again?
September 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“So far the only mechanical evolutionary process suggested by materialists is that “natural selection” (producing fewer offspring) somehow organizes random genetic accidents into complex biological systems. Should the courts be allowed force all of us to pay lip service to that ridiculous explanation?”
So is your only argument an appeal to incredulity followed up with a strawman, or do you have anything of substance to offer?
Suggesting that you don’t believe that natural selection — itself a nonrandom process — can produce nonrandom results is not itself evidence of anything.
If ID pushers weren’t trying to do an end-run around scientific procedure and shove their demonstratably religiously motivated claims (as evidenced by the claims of major ID proponents themselves) as science, when they clearly are not scientific, then the courts would never have had to be involved.
September 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“Evolution is not a critical cog in the great machine of Science, it is merely a pennant on the atheist wing.”
And yet another creationist pushes the lie that the theory of evolution is atheism.
September 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Can I buy a T-shirt?
September 9th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
History of Evolution:
A) Neanderthal Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.
B) Cro-Magnon Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.
C) Piltdown Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.
D) Java Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.
E) Nebraska Man — has been proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.
F) Peking Man — probably was a hoax. The bones have been lost.
G) Zinjanthropus — studies show this was only a primitive ape.
H) “Lucy” – studies show she is fully an ape.
I) Archaeopteryx — Some evidence shows sign of a hoax. There have also been fully modern birds found in earlier strata. Stephen J. Gould says it’s a “curious mosaic,” not a transitional fossil.
J) Coelacanth — This was used as an index fossil for comparison dating until living specimens were found in the Indian Ocean. It is now called a “living fossil.”
—–
“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”
Niles Eldredge - Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History. “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate,” (1995), phoenix: London, 1996, p. 95.
—–
“The pathways that have led to our evolution are quirky, improbable, unrepeatable and utterly unpredictable.”
Stephen J. Gould - 1999. Flipside first person singular evolution: Students have a right to the truth. Interview by Jared Lowe. Charleston (W.V.) Gazette. 11 December, sec. C, p. 1.
—–
“Many people suppose that phylogeny can be discovered directly from the fossil record by studying a graded series of old to young fossils and by discovering ancestors, but this is not true. The fossil record supplies evidence of the geological ages of the forms of life, but not of their direct ancestor-descendant relationships. There is no way of knowing whether a fossil is a direct ancestor of a more recent species or represents a related line of descent (lineage) that simply became extinct.”
Knox B., Ladiges P. & Evans B. - eds., “Biology,” 1994, McGraw-Hill: Sydney, Australia, 1995, reprint, p. 663.
—–
“Zircon dating, which calculates a fossil’s age by measuring the relative amounts of uranium and lead within the crystals, had been whittling away at the Cambrian for some time. By 1990, for example, new dates obtained from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of biology’s Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years. ‘ We now know how fast fast is,’ grins Bowring. And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, ‘How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?’ ”
J. Madeleine Nash - Journalist, “When Life Exploded,” Time, December 4, 1995, p. 74.
—–
What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution…
“One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this [evolution] stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me …”
“[The] question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school”.”
–Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.
September 9th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
–Glenn Davidson:
I must respecfully challenge your contention that creation science and intelligent design are equivalent.–
Considering that I never made that contention here, I have no idea why you’re trying to pin me with it. The fact is that one may treat the various types of creationism differently, or one may treat them as the same, much as IDists do whenever it is convenient for them to do so.
As Deleuze notes, repetition involves difference. That’s why I usually speak of IDists and creationists if I’m discussing both, no matter how similar the two are. That some will always include a “C” with ID is also understandable (that is, they write “IDC” rather than “ID”), as in “Intelligent Design Creationism”. It hardly matters, of course, whether one drags out creation over 4 billion years or so, the essence is still creation. It’s an absurd concept that “design” would require as long a time as non-teleological evolution is thought to do, but there’s nothing new about religious apologists being absurd.
–To better appreciate the differences, I submit to you an interesting historical perspective of both movements.–
Actually, the history is that Paley was an inspiration both to IDists of various stripes since his time, including young earth creationists (YECs). “Design” is an old YEC claim, and most of Behe’s examples were used before Darwin’s Black Box by creationists. Look up “cdesign proponentsists” on the web for the cavalier manner in which one “textbook” was turned from a creationist one into a “design proponent” text.
–Mankind has always been interested in investigating the relationship between God and nature.–
Or the gods and nature, or in how the spirits of nature themselves operate (like the Greek river gods). It’s interesting how readily the “scientific” intelligent design “theorists” allow their theologies to creep into their language.
–At times, philosophy defined the debate; at other times, science seemed to have the upper hand.–
Get real. Modern science began with, say, Galileo, or more certainly with Newton. Science has mostly had the upper hand since then, although IDists are very unhappy about actually applying scientific standards to biology. Hence they wish to change it to accept unevidenced flim-flam, the most beautiful example being when Behe noted on the stand at Dover that astrology would be science under his definition (he seems to have meant only until it was found not to produce results, but it hardly matters, since he there was equating anthropocentric “hypotheses” and actual science hypothesization).
–What has always mattered in this discussion is in which direction the investigation proceeds.–
What has always mattered is how the investigation begins, whether with evidence and minimal biases, or with theistic prejudices. Kevin Miller wants us to believe that the latter is as legitimate a starting place as the former. I bet he wouldn’t want to be tried for a crime under similar prejudices.
–Does it move forward, that is, does it assume something about God and then interpret nature in that context;–
Assuming something about God is not moving forward. It is moving backward to the time when science was checked by theology.
–or does it move backward, that is, does it observe something interesting in nature and then speculate about how that might have come to be?–
No, it hypothesizes about how something came to be, and it uses scientific knowledge to do so. That is, normal causal knowledge is used in any legitimate science. What Stein, Kevin Miller, and apparently you, want to do is to believe in the kind of “Cause” that Aquinas believed in, something that is only speculation, not the result of continued investigation like causes in classical science happens to be.
–If the investigation moves forward, as does CD, it is faith based; if it moves backward, as does ID, it is empirically based.–
Here you show how very little you know about the practice of science. Speculation is for metaphysics and theology. Good solid evidence understood according to normal causality is how science proceeds. ID only tries to force God into the picture because it is theistic metaphysics. You can’t honestly move from the evidence of continued inheritance with modification with no identifiable breaks into the theistic belief in “design”. If the IDists were honest they’d admit that there is nothing similar between known design practices and evolved characteristics, even if sometimes the results can have a functional equivalence and overall similarities (but the details are what always differentiate evolutionary products and design, hence Dembski’s snort at our “pathetic level of detail” which he refuses to engage in, when all of science is about the “details”).
But then you seem not to be discussing science, only claiming that religious ID operates differently from religious creationism. I really don’t care, of course, since neither one is doing honest science.
–Each approach has a pedigree that goes back over two thousand years.–
The fact is that the two are doing much the same thing, utilizing their prior beliefs to try to cram themselves into science. Of course ID wants to claim that it’s making valid inferences from the evidence, but it quite obviously is not. Both intend to bring “science” into accordance with theology and the Bible, of course, the main difference being that creationism tends toward literalism, ID tends more toward medieval metaphysics.
–We notice the forward approach, in Tertullian, Augustine, Bonaventure, and Anselm.–
The whole point of Anselm’s ontological proof is to show that God exists sans prior belief in revelation. So you’re hardly characterizing him properly there. Augustine seems to go back and forth between your “forward approach” and the supposedly different “backward approach”. And he might as well, since modern philosophy and science understand both “directions” to be impossibly dependent upon beliefs which “deconstruct” upon questioning.
–Augustine described it best with the phrase, “faith seeking understanding.” In each case, the investigation is faith based.–
Augustine was not particularly a literalist, and often brought “faith” ideas into line with the evidence as he understood it. Furthermore, he himself was something of a philosopher who used more than just faith to make his arguments. Famously, Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum” appears to be a reformulation of Augustine’s anti-skepticism argument, and from they way that he uses it, one guesses that it was a familiar anti-skeptical argument of his day.
–By contrast, we discover the “backward” orientation in Aristotle,–
You have no business putting Aristotle in with Aquinas and Paley. Aristotle was nothing like an IDist, or a faith-based thinker like Aquinas and Paley. He was what philosophers often call “logocentric,” if not as much as Plato was. Nevertheless, he is sometimes called the “first scientist”, for he did use empirical data for some of his conclusions, most notably biological conclusions.
–Aquinas, Paley, and others.–
These guys are apologists. Nothing strikingly wrong with that, especially considering Aquinas’s excellent thought. Nevertheless, if Aristotle was at least somewhat like a modern scientist, Aquinas is solidly metaphysical and a non-scientist, while Paley is just a Reverend trying to come up with evidence that “proves” his faith. There is nothing new about the fact that Paley’s “argument” wasn’t based on literalism, just as ID is not, but it relies wholly upon an unevidenced concept, God, to “explain” without the rigor of scientific causality.
–Aristotle’s argument, which begins with “motion in nature” and reasons BACK to a “prime mover,” is obviously empirically based.–
It obviously is not empirically based. Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his “god” is most being used to “explain motion”) and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his “physics,” he just invented a God “thinking himself” which supposedly produced the motions. It isn’t for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called “Metaphysics,” for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations. It is a thoughtful and intelligent work, nothing like ID’s attempts to confuse the issues and to have God producing exactly the sorts of patterns of evolution among prokaryotes and among eukaryotes that would accrue through the mechanisms we see affecting each respectively, however it is not an empirical approach at all.
–Obviously, Barbara Forrest and Judge Jones III and others miss the point. CS and ID are simply the latest manifestations of each tradition.–
Obviously they do not miss the main point, which is that although ID is based more in medieval metaphysics and creationism is based more upon a kind of Biblical literalism, both are nothing other than apologetics. If they had a bit more philosophical knowledge they might at least differentiate between ID and creationism somewhat better, for there are some actual differences (Catholics who reject science tend more toward medieval metaphysics and ID, Protestants who reject science tend more toward Bible literalism).
–I therefore ask you to reconsider your point that the the two are synomymous,–
I ask you to read what I write better than you have, for I did not claim that the two are synonymous. They’re equally non-scientific, though, which I no doubt did imply or state at some point. Perhaps that is why you merely assumed that I made the two out to be synonymous.
–either theoretically or pragmatically.–
What matters in this debate is that neither one is science, and both are religious apologetics. Science is what should be taught in science classes, not religion.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’m amazed at how far out of their way the Evolutionists go to talk down to the Intelligent Design-ers, point-by-point explaining in (im)patient detail why we’re not only wrong in everything we believe, but we’re misguided fanatics who wouldn’t recognize a “fact” if it smacked us upside the head, as well. They’re so intellectually certain of their rightness, so strong in their convictions, so firmly resting on all of their journals and books and essays that PROVE their rightness…
That they feel the need to come here and justify their rightness to us ignorant blockheads that exist far beneath their astoundingly high intellectual levels.
If they’re so convinced of their rightness, as they claim… why on earth do they CARE that so many of us silly ID-ers disagree with them?
Are they so insecure in their circularly-reasoned proofs, so uncertain in all their certainties, that they simply can’t BEAR to be disagreed with? Do they NEED 100% agreement from all of humanity in order for the Big Bang and Evolution to be accepted as the only explanation for our existence?
You bet they do.
All the evidence that anyone should ever need can be found right here, in the hundreds upon hundreds of responses to this one blog post. It’s like all the little bullies on the playground grew up and gained highly educated vocabularies. Different toolset; same old behavior.
Ben’s documentary has struck a cultural nerve and is igniting conversations that otherwise wouldn’t exist. For that reason alone, it’s already serving its purpose.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:25 am
you note that Gallileo, Newton and Einstein all operated under the assumption there was a god (in Einstein’s case, you’re wrong) but at the time there was no alternative. everyone believed in God in the days of Gallileo (indeed, Gallileo’s discoveries led many to try and censor his work as it directly contradicted the Bible and came dangerously close to showing there wasn’t a god).
it seems to me that instead of working your way to a conclusion from available evidence (ie, science), you are starting with the assumption that god exists (as is clear in your ridiculous statement “freedom is God-given”), and then try and cack-handedly adapt available evidence to fit your weak view.
the scientific community generally rejects the “idea” of ID as much as it rejects the Victorian principle of Luminiferous Ether. both hypotheses hold the same weight, indeed there is very little reason to see why ID would be fought over, were it not for the Bible.
while you may claim to be brave in defying the scientific institution, really you are a coward for refusing to accept that the theory of evolution is about as plainly observable as the theory that the world is round. scientists have witnessed simple bacterial evolution in laboratories for goodness sake. the reason it is so widely accepted is because it is demonstrably true.
it is no wonder you will be treated with incredulity if you question evolution, no more so than if you were to question that the earth rotates around the sun. sorry mate. very weak case you’re making. i hope your film flops, or you may mislead a lot of people.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:30 am
i don’t suppose i should add that evolution is not a random process yeah? the idea that complex life could come about at random is also ridiculously unscientific. evolution is quite simply a beautifully simple, economic process.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Before making claims like “ID, and its precursor creationism, has not even bothered to produce anything in terms of research”, perhaps Rob should read Dr Michael Behe’s research and work “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution ” or “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”. Dr Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
In the first book, Behe chronicles his research into the irreducible complexity of the cells for blood clotting and the human immune system. Dr Behe’s conclusion is that this is scientific evidence of ID.
Darwin himself (and this is not an exact quote) declared that should science find such irreducible complexity, it would negate his theory completely. Behe noted five, I believe.
He also might want to look at the research completed and still in process of scientists at the Institute for Creation Research.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Ben, you have to somehow fit the recent Baylor-Robert Marks faisco into this movie!
September 10th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Times up Glen. Thanks for proving to everyone else what I already knew, that you are an leaky wind bag, just another denizen of Elsberry’s “inner sancum,” “our forum” where the effete eliite meet to play “can you to this” with one another day after day, month after month, year after year.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past eviolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 10th, 2007 at 8:47 am
If my responses to Glen Davidson are not to appear, just let me know and I will stop wasting my time here.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Academic freedom is more important than any theory. This film seems to be about the harassment of anyone who dares to question that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) is capable of organizing a bunch of genetic acciddents (random mutations) into complex biological systems.
[url=http://30145.myauthorsite.com/]Questions about materialism[/url]
September 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
An inconsequential would-be tyrant wrote this:
–Incidentally, according to his profile, Glen Davidson averages .39 posts per day at After The Bar Closes.–
I did, of course, explain that I now rarely visit AtBC. Unfortunately, JAD is not intelligent enough to work out the implications of those words.
As for the rest of his idiotic attacks, I barely skimmed them.
Yes, Alan Fox, I do get the joke, but it’s never been very clever or funny, just like JAD.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 10th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Evolutionist please explain how out of chaos came order? And if we came from apes, why have no other apes on the planet evolved to human. Please explain.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am
–Glen Davidson
Perhaps you missed my post #1118 about the difference between creation science and intelligent design. I was hoping that you could respond to it, since you seem to labor under the misconception that the two approaches are similar. Obviously, Judge Jones III and Barbara Forrest are not bright enough to make the necessary distinctions. I have higher hopes for you.–
What is it about the anti-evolutionists? Why can’t they count, why can’t they read, why can’t they make reasonable inferences from the way that posts appear haphazardly after “waiting moderation” (and don’t complain about “stereotyping”. I know that some must do better than others, but I have yet to find an IDist who read properly what I wrote and answered on point)? Why doesn’t this guy understand that that I replied reasonably soon, but that I have no control over posting times?
I know Scott can’t or doesn’t read very well, since he repeats his unevidenced and false assertion yet again. I’d have thought that he wouldn’t be so challenged regarding the lag in posting of our remarks.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“the MECHANISM of a long past evolution, an evolution no longer in progress”
Your request has been repeatedly answered. I can now only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring the answers and then lying about the issue. Nothing that you say can ever be trusted.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“Ben is pointing out what happens to those scientists who dare to question orthodoxy. ”
Please Ben is falling for the lies of ID pushers who are claiming that a professor who has failed to meet the stated requirements for tenure (the man hasn’t even had a single student obtain a PhD under his study, for crying out loud) who blame this professor’s acceptance of ID for the rejection of tenure despite the ample documentation that this professor’s work while at the university is completely insufficient to justify tenrue.
This isn’t about academic freedom. This is about ID pushers distorting the truth and even outright lying as a means of fabricating a claim of “persecution”.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“I was hoping that you could respond to it, since you seem to labor under the misconception that the two approaches are similar. Obviously, Judge Jones III and Barbara Forrest are not bright enough to make the necessary distinctions.”
Apparently Philip Johnson, noted “ID” advocate, isn’t smart enough either, as he openly states that ID is about pushing the “reality of God” into the discussion.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“History of Evolution:
A) Neanderthal Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.”
No, it isn’t. You are obtaining your information from dishonest sources. Neanderthal Man, or homo neanderthalensis is a distinctly different species than homo sapiens.
“B) Cro-Magnon Man — is now accepted as a genuine human.”
It was never “accepted” as anything but this. This point is meaningless.
“C) Piltdown Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.”
Yes, this one is true. Now, for some real fun, explain how it was exposed as a hoax.
“D) Java Man — has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.”
Really? Reference the “proof”.
“E) Nebraska Man — has been proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.”
Which was never accepted by the scientific community, as it was rejected during the peer review process. It would be nothing more than a footnote in anthropology except that creationists like to pretend that it was once some kind of flagship for the theory of evolution, when in fact it was never anything more than speculation that fizzled within two years.
“F) Peking Man — probably was a hoax. The bones have been lost.”
Your evidence that Peking Man was “probably” a hoax? Note: that the bones went missing is not itself evidence. Also note that there are casts made from the fossil that have been used for research.
“G) Zinjanthropus — studies show this was only a primitive ape.”
What was it before these “studies”? What is the difference between a “primitive ape” and, say a “non-primitive ape” such as homo sapiens (note: humans are apes).
“H) “Lucy” – studies show she is fully an ape.”
All hominids, including humans, are “ape”. You and I are apes (note: any dispute of this claim means that you are challenging the fundamental definitions of biological science; any snide remarks will expose nothing but your own willful ignorance) Your statement is meaningless. Yes, Lucy was an ape. That doesn’t mean that she also wasn’t Australopithecus afarensis, nor does it detract from the significance of the find.
“I) Archaeopteryx — Some evidence shows sign of a hoax.”
References to this evidence?
“There have also been fully modern birds found in earlier strata.”
1) evidence? 2) So?
” Stephen J. Gould says it’s a “curious mosaic,” not a transitional fossil.”
So your evidence is a mined quote, not an attempt to address the fact that Archaeoptryx has features currently exclusive to birds and also features currently exclusive to reptiles?
“J) Coelacanth — This was used as an index fossil for comparison dating until living specimens were found in the Indian Ocean. It is now called a “living fossil.””
Ah, the common Coelacanth misrepresentation. Or, since I’ve already addressed this falsehood, a LIE.
The Coelacanth specimens found extant today are NOT the same species, or even the same genus as the Coelacanth specimens found fossilized. The finds of extant Coecalanth (which is an *order* of fish) does not negate the usefulness of the previously known fossilized Coelacanth used as index fossils.
I won’t even get into your mined quotes. You’ve already sufficiently demonstrated that you’ve done no real research on the subject; there’s no need to go in and point out why quote mining is not a valid form of argument.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
“Are they so insecure in their circularly-reasoned proofs, so uncertain in all their certainties, that they simply can’t BEAR to be disagreed with? Do they NEED 100% agreement from all of humanity in order for the Big Bang and Evolution to be accepted as the only explanation for our existence?
You bet they do.
All the evidence that anyone should ever need can be found right here, in the hundreds upon hundreds of responses to this one blog post. It’s like all the little bullies on the playground grew up and gained highly educated vocabularies. Different toolset; same old behavior.”
This is a curious, though increasingly common argument style amongst ID pushers. Rather than address anything of substance, they instead ignore all science and simply claim that the fact that they are called out on their falsehoods is evidence that their position is correct.
I’m not sure who it is trying to convince, but it’s strange how so many are willing to so blatantly disregard any semblance of trying to actually address reality, and instead claim — illogically — that opposition to a claim is somehow evidence for that claim.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“Darwin himself (and this is not an exact quote) declared that should science find such irreducible complexity, it would negate his theory completely. Behe noted five, I believe.”
Yes, but Behe’s “five” have already been debunked.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
” This film seems to be about the harassment of anyone who dares to question that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) is capable of organizing a bunch of genetic acciddents (random mutations) into complex biological systems.”
Yes, but keep in mind that the people pushing the film are themselves rather dishonest, and as such the film’s conclusions — such as they are — are not reliable.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hey ya all . . . you think God is going to cease to exist simply because you don’t believe in him?
Many of the posts in here remind me of the preacher’s sermon note that says, “argument weak, pound pulpit hard.”
September 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Nice argument of ignorance
‘“A past eviolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison’
And he complains about my spelling.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Steve: you’re right, a blanket statement saying that they haven’t bothered would be incorrect. Some of the most interesting points in the entire debate have occurred at the spots that Behe has interjected.
Behe’s probably the most research-focused of the bunch, even if it makes its way into books rather than peer review.
There are already a number of challenges to the assertions he made in Black Box, however.
The strong implication that precursors had to be nonfunctional is false.
The lesser implication that even though there might be some functional pieces, that to get them all together is a near-impossible feat, there has been some more argument over. He held on tight to his arguments on the blood clotting cascade, attacking research on things like “knockout mice”, noting that the mice all had big problems, but there was also a larger argument to be made against the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade: other creatures do fine with less of the cascade.
Similar research into the immune system has also made Behe’s arguments less tenable. Yes, research really has progressed that much in 11 years.
Behe’s Edge of Evolution is a lot less edgy, if you’ll forgive the pun, than his earlier work. He seems to be claiming more or less that two mutations have to happen at once, and that the odds of this are really high, but it’s hard to find much basis for the two-mutations-at-once assertion he posits.
The one thing to remember about Behe, too, is that his work assumes common descent, which is not a popular view in the intelligent design camp (I certainly don’t think Steve Meyer, as a baraminologist, would agree with it). He just seems to be saying it ‘must’ need a little help every now and again, which even there he’s had a hard time proving.
Still, the future of intelligent design research relies on them having more Behe types than what they have.
One last point on irreducible complexity in particular. H. J. Muller predicted irreducible complexity as a consequence of evolutionary theory in two papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. The 1918 one is here on page 464 (a little more than halfway down the paper). Even the lethality note is pertinent, since it means that the bad mutations to such systems get filtered out - hard.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“# Steve Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Before making claims like “ID, and its precursor creationism, has not even bothered to produce anything in terms of research”, perhaps Rob should read Dr Michael Behe’s research and work “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution ” or “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism”. Dr Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
In the first book, Behe chronicles his research into the irreducible complexity of the cells for blood clotting and the human immune system. Dr Behe’s conclusion is that this is scientific evidence of ID.
Darwin himself (and this is not an exact quote) declared that should science find such irreducible complexity, it would negate his theory completely. Behe noted five, I believe.
He also might want to look at the research completed and still in process of scientists at the Institute for Creation Research.”
Ah Steve,
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the “scaffolding objection” by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an “irreducibly complex” building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. Behe himself has since confessed to “sloppy prose”, and that his “argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.” Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, however, the court held that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
Cited sources
# John H. McDonald’s “reducibly complex mousetrap” http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
# David Ussery, “A Biochemist’s Response to ‘The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution’” http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
# For example, Bridgham et al.showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. Bridgham et al. (2006). “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”. Science 312 (5770): 97–101.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5770/97
# Orr, H. Allen. “Devolution”, The New Yorker, 2005-05-30. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: Behe, M.; Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski (2003-03-26). Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID. Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC%20Responses&command=view&id=1406
September 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Some quotes all from Simon Singh’s book titled The Big Bang are relevant here.
British physicist William Bonner… suggested
that the Big Bang theory was part of a conspiracy aimed at shoring up Christianity: ‘The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century’
Fred Hoyle was equally scathing when it came to the Big Bang’s association with religion, condemning it as a model built on Judeo-Christian foundations. His views were shared by his Steady State collaborator, Thomas Gold.
However, this wariness sometimes bordered
on paranoia, as noted by the English Nobel Laureate George Thomson: ‘Probably every physicist would believe in a creation if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it many years ago and made it seem old-fashioned.’ pp. 361-2
September 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hey Berthajane Vandegrift,
Is it Academic freedom to teach 1 + 1 = 3 in a math class. Teaching creationism or intelligent design is the same as teach 1 + 1 = 3 in a math class.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Hey Steve,
Critics point out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the necessary parts of a system have always been necessary and therefore could not have been added sequentially. They argue that something which is at first merely advantageous can later become necessary as other components change. Furthermore, they argue, evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the “scaffolding objection” by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an “irreducibly complex” building until it is complete and able to stand on its own. Behe himself has since confessed to “sloppy prose”, and that his “argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof.” Irreducible complexity has remained a popular argument among advocates of intelligent design; in the Dover trial, however, the court held that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.”
John H. McDonald’s “reducibly complex mousetrap”
David Ussery, “A Biochemist’s Response to ‘The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution’”
For example, Bridgham et al.showed that gradual evolutionary mechanisms can produce complex protein-protein interaction systems from simpler precursors. Bridgham et al. (2006). “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation”. Science 312 (5770): 97–101.
Orr, H. Allen. “Devolution”, The New Yorker, 2005-05-30. This article draws from the following exchange of letters in which Behe admits to sloppy prose and non-logical proof: Behe, M.; Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Berlinski (2003-03-26). Has Darwin met his match? Letters - An exchange over ID (HTML). Discovery Institute. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Glen Davidson, rather than respond to all your points (many of which I would challenge), I will try to narrow the focus even more. You tend to impose religious concepts in places where they don’t belong.
Aristotle did not mention a “prime mover” to inject God into the discussion. His point was similar to Aquinas’. Everything in nature that moves must be moved by something else. In his judgment, that process can not go on forever—it must stop at the point of a “prime mover.” Aquinas made the same point, popularizing the term “inifinite regress,” meaning that the number of prior causes must be finite and finally culminate in a causeless cause. In that context, they were not beginning with faith, they were beginning with observation.
Obviously, that doesn’t mean that Aristotle and Aquinas never thought about God, it means that they were looking for a method that would dramatize the power of reason without presuming God’s existence. One may or may not have religious motives for undertaking such an investigation, but the motive does not define the process.
So why do I fuss about that? Why do I narrow the topic to so sharp a point? Because the major objection to intelligent design is the false assertion that THE PROCESS begins with presupposition (faith) and therefore cannot possibly be science. One either begins with presupposition or one begins with observation. Intelligent design begins with observation. If you will not concede anything else, surely you will concede that.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I suppose I should acknowledge that Stephen B (not Scott, like I wrote previously—like I can be bothered to distinguish between the various lame attackers) did actually complain about not getting a response before I made my response.
Sure Stephen, I spend my weekends glued to the web on the chance that someone is going to wrongfully accuse me of contending that ID and creationism are synonymous (actually, they can be, depending on the definition of “creationism,” but I mostly stick with more narrow definitions, mainly to avoid conflict. Still, you can’t prevent people from making stuff up, like Stephen did). Sheesh, have a little patience. You’ve waited years before learning what I have written in my response, you can certainly wait a whole day.
I suppose it might be optimistic of me to think that you’ll learn from it, however, given your apparent willingness to write numerous factual mistakes while making a distinction without any real (philosophical or scientific, anyway) difference.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 10th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I see that Alan Fox has now joined his crony, Glen Davidson fromm After The Bar Closes to further denigrate me by calling me a “loki troll” whatever that is. My papers are published in two refereed journals, The Journal of Theoretical Biology, two papers, and Rivista di Biologia, six papers. Neither journal would dream of publishing another paper by me because I have thoroughly alienated the Editorial Boards of both by exposing their basic philosophies as without scientific foundation, one of my most cherished achievements.
I repeat my request for the scholarly evolution papers by Glen Davidson and Alan Fox, supremely confident that neither has published a word in the only venue that really matters, refereed, peer reviewed, scientific journals. Let the record show that neither responds to my request for that sine qua non of scientific recognition. After The Bar Closes, like Pharyngula is nothing more than a “groupthink” of like minded unfulfilled sociopaths, led by Elsberry and Myers respectively, who, like Davidson and Fox have also never published a word on the only question which has ever been at stake - the MECHANISM of a now finished organic evolution. The curious thing is that none of the leaders of any of the major forums have themselves published a word supporting the positions they so violently defend. They are too busy attacking their enemies to bother pursuing the truth.
“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Dembski must be staring EXPELLED!
This Behe guy expelled? Hey, he’s still at Lehigh. OK, his faculty has this disclaimer. But would you call this expelled? Lönnig and these other guys? Removed some web pages from the web site of their institute or didn’t get tenure. The only one who ever was kicked out of an academic institution was Dembski. And the very same institution did it again! That’s real martyrdom. Besides William Demski is the only one in the ID-creationist camp who is experienced in the movie business. OK, it was just fart overdubs, but did Behe make such sacrifices? He is still playing the distinguished elderly science professor and make tons of money. Did he ever piss off a university president by knowingly publishing a faked e-mail? Does he have to deal with these mentally disabled guys who say the designer is God when it is not appropriate? Does he have to ban all these nasty rationalists that try to undermine his blogs. Did Behe have to apply for a postdoc position at the university that booted him. No!!
THE ONLY REAL VICTIM ON THE ID-CREATIONIST SIDE IS WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI!
DEMBSKI HAS TO BE THE STAR IN EXPELLED!!
September 10th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I used to assume ID theory was non-scientific, until I got curious and decided to study it. To my absolute amazement, in all my days studying the ID vs Darwinism debate, I have never once seen any scientist -
A. Accurately represent the Intelligent Design theory
B. Refute it scientifically or logically
Even Ken Miller, a self described Christian, misrepresented it before pretending he had actually refuted it. Darwinists are obviously frightened, realize the weakness of their theory, and as you can see, can now only resort to personal attacks and misrepresentations of Intelligent Design theory in their attempts to refute it. The revolution has begun.
September 10th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
# Caleb D. R. Windley Says:
September 10th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Evolutionist please explain how out of chaos came order? And if we came from apes, why have no other apes on the planet evolved to human. Please explain.
I’m sure they’ll point you to all the right places to go and read their religious ideas, and then throw a lot of mumble jumble at you, trying to convince you that all came from outer space.
As for the ape/man deal, we didn’t actually evolve, they are our grandpappies and such. So, therefore, they’ll insist that ape=human.
It seems perhaps ppl may have evolved a bit from the bird, cause a lot of feathers have been ruffled … lol.
(Darwinism evolution)Random mutation mind = thought process trying to naturally select something intelligent to say.
I bet Dimensio will have a lot to say to you Caleb. I believe he’s posted about 2/3 of this blog. I suggested he should relax and go fishing and catch a coelacanth, but I guess he doesn’t have a sense of humor. I bet he replies to my post too. He can’t resist posting to everyone who doesn’t believe his beliefs.
Since I didn’t come from an ape, gorilla or chimp, my brain is of an intelligent design and did not mutate to naturally select to believe the farce of particles-to-people evolution.
~M
September 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
“Hey ya all . . . you think God is going to cease to exist simply because you don’t believe in him?”
Your question is completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“Evolutionist please explain how out of chaos came order?”
This is not addressed by the theory of evolution.
“And if we came from apes, why have no other apes on the planet evolved to human. Please explain.”
Why should such an event have occured?
September 10th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
–Glen Davidson, rather than respond to all your points (many of which I would challenge),–
You don’t challenge them. More importantly, you haven’t the knowledge to do so, but deny like IDists normally do.
–I will try to narrow the focus even more. You tend to impose religious concepts in places where they don’t belong.–
Sorry, I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong. Your confusions are inadequate to keep religious presuppositions in their place. Or more to the point, in many hands they seem designed to deliberately confuse the issues.
–Aristotle did not mention a “prime mover” to inject God into the discussion.–
Here you go in your strawman attack mode again. I wrote:
–Rather than noting motions in the heavens (which seems to be where his “god” is most being used to “explain motion”) and acknowledging that he did not have an explanation for them under his “physics,” he just invented a God “thinking himself” which supposedly produced the motions. It isn’t for nothing that such a speculation came in the book now called “Metaphysics,” for that work is largely involved in non-empirical speculations. –
I didn’t begin to say that Aristotle did “mention a ‘prime mover’ to inject God into the discussion,” which false charge is as incorrect as your many other errors. I wrote, essentially, that he had no explanation, so he invented one. That’s what religions have often done.
–His point was similar to Aquinas’. Everything in nature that moves must be moved by something else.–
Well gee, I suppose it was similar to Aquinas’ “proof of God,” since Aquinas’ “proof” almost certainly comes ultimately from Aristotle.
Importantly, everything in nature that moves must not in fact be moved by something else. This gets back the metaphysics of Aristotle, for indeed he speculated where he had no empirical evidence.
–In his judgment, that process can not go on forever—it must stop at the point of a “prime mover.” Aquinas made the same point, popularizing the term “inifinite regress,” meaning that the number of prior causes must be finite and finally culminate in a causeless cause. In that context, they were not beginning with faith, they were beginning with observation.–
I wonder why those ignorant of philosophy think they have something to tell those of us who are adept in philosophy. I know very well what Aristotle, and Aquinas following him, said. My point was that there is nothing empirical in their “solutions,” unlike Galileo’s and Newton’s physics, and you yammer on about the rationale of a non-empirical “physics” and metaphysics which existed prior to Galileo.
Can’t you at least see why we oppose the insistence of the pseudoscientists that we adopt the Aristotelian nonsense that was used (in part) to persecute Galileo? That’s what ID is, where it isn’t actually the same as creationism, an attempt to base their “science” on the mistaken presuppositions of Aristotle and medieval scholastics.
Indeed, Dembski quite directly claims that we need to consider the other “causes” listed by Aristotle (material, formal, and final), along with his “efficient cause” (which really wasn’t the same as causation today, though it at least is related to it). Well we largely gave up the others because they don’t work in science, and we’re not impressed with the claims made by Aristotle which have been refuted by modern science. And ID has little else, and nothing worthwhile.
–Obviously, that doesn’t mean that Aristotle and Aquinas never thought about God, it means that they were looking for a method that would dramatize the power of reason without presuming God’s existence.–
Except that they had indelibly in their minds the “fact” of God’s existence, though certainly Aristotle was willing to play around with this “fact”. And they operated with metaphysics which assumed top-down imposition of form and motion, while modern science understands it, more or less, bottom up (I don’t like speaking of modern science as “bottom up”, but compared to the hierarchical IDist claims, and in its metaphysical language, that’s the closest I can come to a comparison). That’s why the great majority of Aristotle’s work is not science, no matter that he had some of the elements of science working even in his unworkable “physics” (and science almost certainly benefited by Aquinas’ incorporation of Aristotelian ideas into Western thought, until Aristotle became a millstone around Galileo’s neck).
–One may or may not have religious motives for undertaking such an investigation, but the motive does not define the process.–
Another strawman from Stephen. I have repeatedly noted that religious motives needn’t define the process, as in Galileo, Einstein, Newton, and Lord Kelvin (though both Newton and Kelvin left science in some of their claims). It’s the IDists, not religious people in general, who object to the science which developed to its full flowering within Christendom (with help from ancient pagans and contemporary Jews and Muslims, and almost certainly others as well) who have to force their unwarranted presuppositions into science because they are unwilling to accept the tests of their ideas that science provides.
–So why do I fuss about that?–
No doubt because you’d rather attack a strawman than what I actually wrote, and because you have nothing with which to legitimately argue for ID.
–Why do I narrow the topic to so sharp a point?–
I see nothing sharp or on-point in your treatment of the subject. Learn some philosophy, at least, if you’re unwilling to learn science.
–Because the major objection to intelligent design is the false assertion that THE PROCESS begins with presupposition (faith) and therefore cannot possibly be science.–
Good grief, the major objection to intelligent design is that it has absolutely no sound evidence in favor of it. I know that you’re just making up stuff as you go along, Stephen, but you’d look a whole lot more competent if you’d learn what’s at stake.
And the fact that theistic assumptions are necessary in order to arrive at “God” or “the Designer” is another grave objection, one that you seem not even to understand how to potentially address.
–One either begins with presupposition or one begins with observation.–
No, one does not. One begins with the way that one understands the world (Kant), and one begins with observation (which actually shape Kantian “categories” and the like). Even presuppositions begin with observations, however they do often intrude into further observation, as is the case with ID.
–Intelligent design begins with observation.–
ID begins with a prejudice, the sort of animistic/typological sense that the world must operate like humans do (probably unavoidable in early humans, for what other processes could they know?). There are observations involved (gee, it’s pretty complicated, and other equally mindless ID tripe), but first and foremost ID begins with a metaphysics which is illegitimate in science and in modern philosophy (possibly not in some dungeons of analytic philosophy (think of Saul Kripke), but certainly in mainstream analytic and continental philosophy).
–If you will not concede anything else, surely you will concede that.–
Sure, I studied philosphy in order to concede that metaphysics is due to observation. Ha.
What I can say is that you’re pretty far from a good understanding of metaphysics, philosophy, or science. ID cannot reach the “conclusion” that there was a “designer” without first putting their God into their premises (or, one might say, only if they fail to disabuse themselves of their anthropocentric prejudices, since that’s from where those premises come). It’s all top-down metaphysics, assertion that DNA information can only come from mind, and denial of the evidence of derivation of all life via the processes operating at present.
If you knew anything about the philosophy you invoke, Stephen, you’d know that I’d never concede that ID begins with observation, for I have studied both the history of philosophy and those who have analyzed the presuppositions of the metaphysicians and logocentrists. One does not concede a falsehood, above all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Travis M Birkhead said: “Now, how has evolution lead to a breakthrough in the scientific community? Who has it helped out?”
The validity of a scientific theory does not depend on whether it helps people or not.
“WHat amazing discoveries did evolution lead to and what does it predict in the future that will assist us in more science?”
Among other things, it lead to people realizing that the species are not immutable. It is leading to the realization that we need to be careful with antibiotics and pesticides because we are unintentionally breeding drug-resistant diseases and pesticide-resistant insects.
“Evolution can not be proven. The only way to prove evolution is to watch it occur, and even then you don’t prove that it has always happened. You only show that it happened now. You could infer that because it happened once, then it is more likely that it happened in the past, but that’s it.”
I get very frustrated with things like this. What you posted is true of EVERY scientific theory. You can’t prove that the common cold is caused by viruses. You can only demonstrate that everyone who had a cold and was tested for a virus came up positive. You can’t prove that the force of gravity varies with the inverse square law, only that it has every time someone has checked. You can’t prove that quantum mechanics works and was largely responsible for allowing your computer to operate.
There’s no good reason to reject evolution because it can’t be “proven”; because if you do so you also have to throw away every single other scientific theory in existence.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Jacob Evilsizor said: “When little Billy goes to school the first day and the class opens up their picture book about dinosaurs, the first thing he reads (as we all know) is: “Millions of years ago, Dinosaurs roamed the earth.” Without a knowledgeable role model to help little Billy discern the truth about the millions of years farce, he will probably believe it unwittingly for his entire life, as most people do.”
So, out of curiosity, how long ago do you think the dinosaurs really lived and why do you think so?
September 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Asserting that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) might be capable of organizing a bunch of genetic acciddents (random mutations) into complex biological systems would be the equivilent of claiming 1+1=3 and skepticism of the silly forumla is only common sense.
http://30145.myauthorsite. com/
September 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Marilyn Oakley said: “Clearly, the one fact that is ‘verified’ is that three-toed and one-toed horses both existed at the same time. Both specimens were trapped in the same volcanic eruption, in the same locality, ‘frozen in time’. This hardly supports the idea that one type was the ancestor of the other.”
Marilyn, let me ask you this. When you were born, did your parents die the instant you were delivered?
September 10th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Glen Davidson, actually, I made a typo on post 1118. What I meant was that you missed my point, not that you didn’t read the post or respond in a timely manner. So, calm down.
You say that you haven’t conflated CS with ID, yet you continue to claim that ID, in effect, bootlegs religion into its methodology which is what CS does So I don’t get why you think I am putting words in your mouth. If one begins with presupposition (faith, bias, religion etc), one is doing creation science; if one begins with observation and draws inferences from data, one is doing ID. I say ID begins with observation; you (seem) to say it begins with a religious presuppoition. Am I misreading your position or connecting dots that aren’t there?
September 10th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
TO DIMENSIO:
My apologies for lumping you into the atheistic bunch. Out of curiosity though–to what camp do you belong? Some form of mysticism, buddhism, hinduism, taoism or are you a theistic evolutionist? You may have already answered this but if you could share again I’d appreciate it.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Anyone college that does not allow John A. Davidson to teach a mandatory introductory course to every subject is censoring the truth.
In other news, I wonder if Ben and Premise Media will include stories like this in their movie:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/
September 10th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“So, what you are saying is that you could take let’s say a 1000 year old skeleton, and make the exact mold of that person, of what they exactly looked like, hair style, eye color, full lips/thin lips, etc., that you can actually say what kind of lifestyle they lived, what they believed, their likes and dislikes, etc. to be factual? And you can actually record the data, present it as fact of what they ate while they were alive?”
“Besides, I’m not talking about the modern crime lab, I’m talking about the fossils used to support Darwinism evolution. They take the many fragmentary fossils that have been found and actually draw pictures of what they think they looked like and how they lived. That is not actual data that can be derived from such fossils. Only imagination can come up with such stories. Nothing is know from such ancient bones. But, yet they state such things as fact, when they are not.”
Marilyn,
Please excuse the delay in replying to you. My point was that physical anthropologists AND criminal investigators use many of the same tools of science to show us what a long-dead person, known only through skeletal remains, probably looked like. And this is not a wild guess, either.
See this link for some info on modern forensics:
http://www.forensicartist.com/reconstruction.html
At the American Museum of Natural History in NYC there is a fascinating video showing how a scientist reconstructed the head of one of our extinct relatives (Don’t remember which one).
btw, we have mummified mammoths and cave-paintings of extinct animals, including mammoths– which gives us some pretty good feedback on how accurate our reconstruction efforts of those creatures are.
And scientists update our knowledge base as research reveals new info. (Science works on the basis of best explanation; it is ever being revised.)
The Tyrannosaurus Rex was once thought to have a Godzilla-like posture, standing up tall with a tail dragging on the ground. When t-rex tracks were discovered with no trace of a dragging tail, scientists realized that some updating was in order. The t-rex at the Museum of Natural History is now posed like a road runner– and this was done at considerable expense!
There is much more I could say about what we can discover about the past: When we find cave paintings we know that the people who produced them were capable of symbolic thought. When we find human graves with grave goods we know that they believed in an afterlife. The scoring on Neanderthal teeth indicates that they probably used their teeth as a vise (e.g. to help a pelt being scraped). And I could go on and on and on and on.
You might enjoy a visit to a natural history museum! Do you have one where you live?
September 10th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“So, what you are saying is that you could take let’s say a 1000 year old skeleton, and make the exact mold of that person, of what they exactly looked like, hair style, eye color, full lips/thin lips, etc., that you can actually say what kind of lifestyle they lived, what they believed, their likes and dislikes, etc. to be factual? And you can actually record the data, present it as fact of what they ate while they were alive?”
“Besides, I’m not talking about the modern crime lab, I’m talking about the fossils used to support Darwinism evolution. They take the many fragmentary fossils that have been found and actually draw pictures of what they think they looked like and how they lived. That is not actual data that can be derived from such fossils. Only imagination can come up with such stories. Nothing is know from such ancient bones. But, yet they state such things as fact, when they are not.”
Marilyn,
Please excuse the delay in replying to you. My point was that physical anthropologists AND criminal investigators use many of the same tools of science to show us what a long-dead person, known only through skeletal remains, probably looked like. And this is not a wild guess, either.
See this link for some info on modern forensics:
http://www.forensicartist.com/reconstruction.html
At the American Museum of Natural History in NYC there is a fascinating video showing how a scientist reconstructed the head of one of our extinct relatives (Don’t remember which one).
btw, we have mummified mammoths and cave-paintings of extinct animals, including mammoths– which gives us some pretty good feedback on how accurate our reconstruction efforts of those creatures are.
And scientists update our knowledge base as research reveals new info. (Science works on the basis of best explanation; it is ever being revised.)
The Tyrannosaurus Rex was once thought to have a Godzilla-like posture, standing up tall, with a tail dragging on the ground. When t-rex tracks were discovered with no trace of a dragging tail, scientists realized that some updating was in order. The t-rex at the Museum of Natural History is now posed like a road runner– and this was done at considerable expense!
There is much more I could say about what we can discover about the past from fossils: When we find cave paintings we know that the people who produced them were capable of symbolic thought. When we find human graves with grave goods we know that they believed in an afterlife. The scoring on Neanderthal teeth indicates that they probably used their teeth as a vise (e.g. to hold securely a pelt being scraped). And I could go on and on and on and on.
You might enjoy a visit to a natural history museum! Do you have one close to where you live?
September 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
So does “Big Science” really refuse to consider intelligent design because it is entrenched in dogmatic Darwinism? Then why did the American Museum of Natural History (the mother of all big science institutions) host an Evolution/ID debate in 2002?
I was there, and below you will see a link to the transcript.
Pay attention to the Dr. Dembski (pro-ID) vs Dr. Pennock (pro-evolution) section. (Both are philosophers of science.) Dr. D was unable to say too much. (Actually it was painful to watch, even though I don’t agree with Dr. Dembski.)
You can see why the ID folks prefer to take their ideas directly to school children instead of to mainstream scientists.
Here’s the transcript:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6093_part_01_introductions_by_rich_10_31_2002.asp
September 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Hello Beaglelady,
I appreciate your post. But some fossil finds have been scarce, like say only a top of the skull is found, but not the face, it would be hard to really make an accurate model out of that. I agree that whole skeletons (animal, man) found can give better insight on how they looked. But, we can assume, that if two people took the same skull, they would both have a different looking person. And, how could one tell if a person had a chubby face or not from a skull? Just curious on that one.
I find modern crime detectives very fascinating, and the whole process that goes with it. I think DNA is great in getting the real criminal, when it is available.
What kind of grave goods were found if I may ask? Just curious to what they wanted to have buried with themselves.
Thx.
~M
September 10th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Asserting that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) might be capable of organizing a bunch of genetic acciddents (random mutations) into complex biological systems would be the equivilent of claiming 1+1=3 and skepticism of the silly forumla is only common sense.”
Perhaps you could justify this bizarre analogy rather than simply assert it.
For example, you liken natural selection to “the grim reaper”. Please explain this association along with the justification of your analogy.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hi Ben,
I will have to respectfully disagree with your position here. Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in our public schools because it is not science. I have spent many weeks listening to podcasts and reading books from proponents of both sides and have coincluded that Intelligent Design supporters just try to tear down evolution. They use logical fallacies and lies to sway the public. They have even resorted to personal attacks on the character of Charles Darwin
To be considered science, a model or theory needs to do more than just bash an established theory. Let’s call this what it really is; religion in the public schools. THERE IS NO PLACE FOR RELIGION IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS. If a parent or guardian wishes to enroll their child or children in a private school to learn religion, they have that right. However, they don’t have the right to force their superstitious, fear-mongering propaganda on the rest of us.
People who think they have a right to force “religious right” on America are not real Americans. This country was founded on the principle of liberty by men who were wise enough to know not to mix church and state. Ben, you seem like an intelligent man. Please look closely at the facts and reconsider before you let your emotions or your faith cloud your judgment. I wish you all the best in life!
Sincerely,
Jim
September 10th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
“My apologies for lumping you into the atheistic bunch. Out of curiosity though–to what camp do you belong? Some form of mysticism, buddhism, hinduism, taoism or are you a theistic evolutionist? You may have already answered this but if you could share again I’d appreciate it.”
What do my personal religious convictions matter? You claimed that the reaction to Ben was from an “atheistic evolutionary mob” and, in so doing, perpetuated the myth that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists. That is a demonstratably false position. My specific religious convictions are irrelevant; your assertion had at its core a fundamental falsehood.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“A. Accurately represent the Intelligent Design theory”
That might be because ID pushers themselves are inconsistent on what, exactly, ID is, and I’ve never heard anyone state it in the form of a complete theory.
“B. Refute it scientifically or logically”
That’s understandable, given that ID proponents refuse to offer a hypothetical falsification criteria (which is one of the reasons that ID is not science).
Before tossing around haughty assertions, perhaps you could 1) state the theory of “Intelligent Design” (meaning that you need to state what observations it explains AND state the specific known *extant* mechanisms invoked as an explanation) and 2) provide at least some means by which it could be hypothetically falsified.
September 10th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
With regard to the harmony of science and religion, the Writings of the Central Figures and the commentaries of the Guardian make abundantly clear that the task of humanity, including the Baha’i community that serves as the “leaven” within it, is to create a global civilization which embodies both the spiritual and material dimensions of existence. The nature and scope of such a civilization are still beyond anything the present generation can conceive. The prosecution of this vast enterprise will depend on a progressive interaction between the truths and principles of religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a natural and inescapable feature of the process of exploring reality. It also requires us not to limit science to any particular school of thought or methodological approach postulated in the course of its development. The challenge facing Baha’i thinkers is to provide responsible leadership in this endeavour,. . .
19 May 1995, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer) [14]
Some Answered Questions
Part Four — On the Origin, Powers and Conditions of Man
47. THE UNIVERSE IS WITHOUT BEGINNING THE ORIGIN OF MAN
Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that the world of existence–that is to say, this endless universe–has no beginning.
We have already explained that the names and attributes of the Divinity themselves require the existence of beings. Although this subject has been explained in detail, we will speak of it again briefly. Know that an educator without pupils cannot be imagined; a monarch without subjects could not exist; a master without scholars cannot be appointed; a creator without a creature is impossible; a provider without those provided for cannot be conceived; for all the divine names and attributes demand the existence of beings. If we could imagine a time when no beings existed, this imagination would be the denial of the Divinity of God. Moreover, absolute nonexistence cannot become existence. If the beings were absolutely nonexistent, existence would not have come into being. Therefore, as the Essence of Unity (that is, the existence of God) is everlasting and eternal–that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end–it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end. Yes, it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing; the universe would not be disordered nor destroyed. On the contrary, existence is eternal and perpetual. As each globe has a beginning, necessarily it has an end because every composition, collective or particular, must of necessity be decomposed. The only difference is that some are quickly decomposed, and others more slowly, but it is impossible that a composed thing should not eventually be decomposed.
It is necessary, therefore, that we should know what each of the important existences was in the beginning– for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element. Thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized. But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time. Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared.
This composition and arrangement, through the wisdom of God and His preexistent might, were produced from one natural organization, which was composed and combined with the greatest strength, conformable to wisdom, and according to a universal law. From this it is evident that it is the creation of God, and is not a fortuitous composition and arrangement. This is why from every natural composition a being can come into existence, but from an accidental composition no being can come into existence. For example, if a man of his own mind and intelligence collects some elements and combines them, a living being will not be brought into existence since the system is unnatural. This is the answer to the implied question that, since beings are made by the composition and the combination of elements, why is it not possible for us to gather elements and mingle them together, and so create a living being. This is a false supposition, for the origin of this composition is from God; it is God Who makes the combination, and as it is done according to the natural system, from each composition one being is produced, and an existence is realized. A composition made by man produces nothing because man cannot create.
Briefly, we have said that from the composition and combination of elements, from their decomposition, from their measure, and from the effect of other beings upon them, resulted forms, endless realities and innumerable beings. But it is clear that this terrestrial globe in its present form did not come into existence all at once, but that this universal existence gradually passed through different phases until it became adorned with its present perfection. Universal beings resemble and can be compared to particular beings, for both are subjected to one natural system, one universal law and divine organization. So you will find the smallest atoms in the universal system are similar to the greatest beings of the universe. It is clear that they come into existence from one laboratory of might under one natural system and one universal law; therefore, they may be compared to one another. Thus the embryo of man in the womb of the mother gradually grows and develops, and appears in different forms and conditions, until in the degree of perfect beauty it reaches maturity and appears in a perfect form with the utmost grace. And in the same way, the seed of this flower which you see was in the beginning an insignificant thing, and very small; and it grew and developed in the womb of the earth and, after appearing in various forms, came forth in this condition with perfect freshness and grace. In the same manner, it is evident that this terrestrial globe, having once found existence, grew and developed in the matrix of the universe, and came forth in different forms and conditions, until gradually it attained this present perfection, and became adorned with innumerable beings, and appeared as a finished organization.
Then it is clear that original matter, which is in the embryonic state, and the mingled and composed elements which were its earliest forms, gradually grew and developed during many ages and cycles, passing from one shape and form to another, until they appeared in this perfection, this system, this organization and this establishment, through the supreme wisdom of God.
Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at once appear in this form; neither did it then become the manifestation of the words “Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers.” [Qur’án 23:14.] Gradually it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it attained this form and beauty, this perfection, grace and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law.
That is to say, the embryo passes through different states and traverses numerous degrees, until it reaches the form in which it manifests the words “Praise be to God, the best of Creators,” and until the signs of reason and maturity appear. And in the same way, man’s existence on this earth, from the beginning until it reaches this state, form and condition, necessarily lasts a long time, and goes through many degrees until it reaches this condition. But from the beginning of man’s existence he is a distinct species. In the same way, the embryo of man in the womb of the mother was at first in a strange form; then this body passes from shape to shape, from state to state, from form to form, until it appears in utmost beauty and perfection. But even when in the womb of the mother and in this strange form, entirely different from his present form and figure, he is the embryo of the superior species, and not of the animal; his species and essence undergo no change. Now, admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist, this is not a proof of the impermanence and the nonoriginality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed. Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal. So, if the embryo of man in the womb of the mother passes from one form to another so that the second form in no way resembles the first, is this a proof that the species has changed? that it was at first an animal, and that its organs progressed and developed until it became a man? No, indeed! How puerile and unfounded is this idea and this thought! For the proof of the originality of the human species, and of the permanency of the nature of man, is clear and evident.
Some Answered Questions
Part Four — On the Origin, Powers and Conditions of Man
pages 180-185
Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá
September 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Davidson, I will lift your ban at Uncommon Descent if you can be civil.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:02 am
i can’t understand why anyone brings Behe up on this - surely he was proved pretty much wrong in that court case? as far as i’m aware, he asserted that the immune system was far too complicated to have ever arisen without an omnibenevolent supernatural creator being having made it - and that was it. he just decided that he didn’t know how it could have arisen gradually over a period of millions of years and so declared that an intelligent being (with an immune system of its own?) deliberately made it.
and that seems to be the prevalent argument on these comments - “evolution can’t possibly have happened because we think it is wrong”.
and yet Behe was confronted with countless research papers documenting the evolution of the immune system - all of them backed up with actual, observably evidenced research, i may add.
it’s one thing to simply claim that evolution can’t have happened, or, conversely, that there are no gods, but if you have actual observable proofs (as we have of evolution), you can come to a genuine conclusion. to abandon this way of thinking is to just take anything we feel to be true as fact, assuming that our right to free speech has any bearing on historical events (it doesn’t).
let’s just hope that the film is meant as a spoof comedy after all eh?
September 11th, 2007 at 7:54 am
I find it interesting that so much attention is given to the debate of Intelligent Design vs Evolution. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. I think it should be the other way around.
However, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved. The Bible even says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).
That does not mean, however, that there is not evidence of God’s existence. The Bible declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset – all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men…” There is something deep down in our beings that recognizes that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and through us is still there. Despite all of this, the Bible warns us that some will still deny God’s existence, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” (Psalm 14:1). Since over 98% of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God – there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the Biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument basically uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being - but that would contradict God’s very definition. A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.
A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God. A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?
Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and instead believe a lie. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
People claim to not believe in God because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once people admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable for our actions to Him. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society - to give people an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
Allow me one last argument for God’s existence. How do I know God exists? I know God exists because I speak to Him every day. I do not audibly hear Him speaking back to me, but I sense His presence, I feel His leading, I know His love, I desire His grace. Things have occurred in my life that have no other possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved me and changed my life that I cannot help but to acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments in and of themselves can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is so plainly clear. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.
Recommended Resource: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:11 am
I find Sparc’s comment below grossly intolerant:
“Does he have to deal with these mentally disabled guys who say the designer is God when it is not appropriate.”
Are we edging back to the old Soviet Union Under Stalin? This is not the America I was reared in. Ben, we need your film ASAP. People who say things like people “who say the designer is God when it is not appropriate” are sick are themselves warped. When is it not appropriate? Sparc why don’t you make a list of all of the places it is inappropriate to say the designer is God and then if someone violates this list we will throw them in mental hospitals like the Soviet Union did.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Glen
“I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong”.
Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong? A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.” I find this comment of yours very offensive. Who are you to judge where religion does not belong? If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does. Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing. Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet? Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of. Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them. Ben you need to release your film ASAP.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I find Sparc’s comment below grossly intolerant:
This Behe guy expelled? Hey, he’s still at Lehigh. OK, his faculty has this disclaimer. But would you call this expelled? Lönnig and these other guys? etc. etc.
Sparc, you do not know what you are talking about. You have no idea what-so-ever of what Behe has gone through as a result of his heresy. I would not wish the Hell he has experienced on my worst enemy. And Behe cannot answer for himself now. Did you know persons of Lönnig’s religious faith were thrown in the concentration camps in World War II Germany and over 4,000 were sent to prison in the United States during the war and after? Do you know how many careers have been ruined, degrees denied, employment terminated and, as a result, lives ruined, divorces and even suicides that have resulted because of the persecution by Darwin Fundamentalists in this country? Your comment is both appallingly insensitive and ignorant. The hatred of many Darwin Fundamentalists seems to know no bounds. When Johnson had his serious stroke the Darwin Fundamentalists rejoiced and mocked him without mercy, and this in print in articles and books. Ben, I cannot wait to see your film.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:57 am
For those who are truly honest inquirers, including Rob who asks some good questions at the beginning of this stream of comments, try www.uncommondescent.com, the website of perhaps the preeminent ID researcher — mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Dembski, a doctor of philosophy, has studied advance math at M.I.T. and holds degrees from Princeton and U. of Chicago. His book “The Design Inference” is a must read for anybody who questions the validity of the ID notion. Before you critique ID, read something. Otherwise, you are only ape-ing what Dawkins and the other tired dogmatists are spewing. Honest critique is one thing; uneducated ad hom. attacks are quite another. Thanks, Ben, for sounding the alarm.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Sorry. Try this link to Dembski’s site: http://www.uncommondescent.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Sad stuff ben…
http://r2000.blogspot.com
September 11th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Article: Lucy Knows How to Start a Conversation;
Excerpt from article:
Approaching a glass case holding the world’s most famous fossil, one of the most complete hominid skeletons ever found, 10-year-old Garrett Bryant of Odessa peered down at the incomplete jigsaw puzzle of brittle bone fragments and looked disappointed.
“What happened to her skull?” he asked his mother.
“I imagine animals drug it off,” Marla Bryant answered.
She walked over to examine the lifelike 3½-foot, hairy, half-smiling model of what scientists believe Lucy looked like and had her own questions.
“They don’t have any finger bones, so how do they know her hand was like that?” Marla Bryant asked her mother, Leona Rice.
“They’re guessing,” Rice replied.
Young Garrett processed the scene for a few more minutes and then shrugged.
“She’s just a monkey,” he declared, and then walked off.
read in it’s entirety here:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5104737.html
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:04AM
Houston’s newest (and oldest) visitor attracts about 1,000; article here
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5100267.html
~M
September 11th, 2007 at 11:01 am
As for Intellgent Design, William Paley almost hit the nail on the head long before Darwin when he declared -
“Where there is design there is a designer.”
What he should have said, and all that is required by my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is -
“Where there is design there WAS a designer.”
Similarly, Einstein’s famous “Everything is determined” should read “Everything WAS determined.”
That which is determined most certainly was determined unless one subscribes to a constantly intervening God.
“Let us not invoke God in matters in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE.”
Pierre Grasse, page 166, his emphasis, original in italics.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
–Glen Davidson, actually, I made a typo on post 1118. What I meant was that you missed my point, not that you didn’t read the post or respond in a timely manner. So, calm down.–
I hadn’t responded to you yet, so how could I have missed your point?
–You say that you haven’t conflated CS with ID, yet you continue to claim that ID, in effect, bootlegs religion into its methodology which is what CS does–
I don’t conflate CS with ID, but I also don’t accept your unevidenced assertion that the difference is that ID isn’t religious. In fact, all of the evidence is that ID is overwhelmingly religious, from it’s “big tent” strategy and its refusal to address the scientific question of the age of the earth (physicist Heddle had a falling out with IDists over that, because he knows that the age of the earth is extremely important in science, and for him, especially astronomy), to the religious statements known from most of its prominent proponents. Dembski famously stated that, “Dembski: “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,” Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999″ (my source for this was Wikipedia, article “Intelligent Design”).
I would not say that one absolutely has to be religious in order to take up the most minimal tenets of ID. They’d be wrong to do so, likely basing their acceptance of it on teleological biases and incredulity at self-organizing principles, but they wouldn’t have to be exactly religious (arguably, however, they’d be using a metaphysics which is in essence religious, without their recognizing this). What matters is that the movement, and particularly the attempts to force ID into schools and to censor science and its standards, is heavily based in religion and done for the sake of religion.
–So I don’t get why you think I am putting words in your mouth.–
That’s because there is so much that you don’t get. You have your unquestioned “reasons” why ID isn’t the same as creationism, and when someone disagrees with you and tells you how they really do differ, you simply don’t grasp the reasons I have. That is to say, like so many pro-IDists, you really don’t know what makes up philosophy and science, and the various ways that we have of addressing matters, and instead you rely on the narrow claims of IDists and other religionists to set the “standard”.
It’s precisely such narrowness that we are trying to prevent. And no, of course we’re not trying to force the teaching of evolution in the churches, for it is the open society that negates Ben Stein’s charges. The problem is that Ben and the rest wish to intrude their non-standards into another sector of society that allows the reality-based community scope for action, thereby compromising our freedoms to associate and to act as we wish.
Indeed, if that happens it will be the worst for the religious, for there will no longer be any reason why the churches shouldn’t be forced to teach evolution or anything else that society at large might wish everyone to learn.
–If one begins with presupposition (faith, bias, religion etc), one is doing creation science; if one begins with observation and draws inferences from data, one is doing ID.–
Again, Dembski said, “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”
–I say ID begins with observation; you (seem) to say it begins with a religious presuppoition.–
How about this, why don’t you tell me what observation leads one to God, or to “the Designer”. I mentioned that the major problem we have with ID is not that it is religious, but that it has no sound evidence in favor of it. That it begins with religion is a problem, but if by strange chance ID (an earlier ID, one that wasn’t so intent on refusing to make inherent predictions) happened to make the right predictions predicated on what we know about design, it would likely be accepted as science (depends upon the circumstances).
That is to say, we keep asking for meaningful observations from IDists, and we never receive any (other than the equivalents of “it looks designed” or the false dichotomy of “evolution isn’t up to the task, hence design is true”—we want evidence for ID, for, even if modern evolutionary failed, there’s no apparent reason why ID would explain anything at all). So yes, of course I’m saying that ID doesn’t begin with observation, that’s essentially the whole case against ID as any kind of science, even as a failed science. We ask for observational data which would point to design (like rational layouts of organisms and systems, instead of the evolved systems and organisms that we see). We ask and ask and ask, and we never receive it. If ID began with observation (and we do mean using the standard observational practices of science and forensics), I’m sure that we’d either have some of the evidence for ID that we have requested, or an admission on the part of IDists that ID isn’t science.
–Am I misreading your position or connecting dots that aren’t there?–
There isn’t any question that I state and have alwasy stated that ID doesn’t begin with observation. IDists no doubt often think that they do, however their unquestioned assumptions and unquestioned human predilections for presupposing purpose and design that isn’t there, precede them.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 11th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Atomic Chimp: I have read the transcript. Every word. And I do not appreciate your quoting out of context. When I get the time, I plan to go into more detail, but until then David Warren, who has studied the case, wrote (correctly)
There was a show trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, two years ago, in which a local school board was prosecuted for having permitted the teaching of intelligent design. This was publicized by the liberal media as, “Another Scopes trial in America!” The defense called Michael Behe, so the plaintiffs brought Eric Rothschild, a high-powered attorney, to lure him into verbal traps. Rothschild made tendentious points on the definition of “science.” Behe wouldn’t play, and noted, rather dryly, that if the current official definition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were enforced, most major advances in modern science would have to be ruled illegal. Rothschild then paraphrased Behe’s position as, “So you believe astrology is valid science.” Needless to say, Behe demurred.
This was then reported, in the liberal science press, with the triumphalist flavor of, “Behe forced to admit that astrology is valid science according to his definition.”
And now, in letter after letter I receive, the Darwinists have simplified this to, “Behe also believes in astrology.”
End of quote.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
–Glen
“I’m the one trying to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong”.
Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong?–
Since you guys can’t make any sort of “argument” except by lame analogy, I’m not surprised that this absurd comment cropped up.
OK, Jbagail, we’ll not tolerate being kept out of where we’re told that we don’t belong. I demand to be made the pastor of D. James Kennedy’s church. I’m certainly more qualified to tell the truth, and why should I be kept out just because I don’t agree with his church’s teaching?
So is this an exact analogy? No, of course it isn’t. One complication is that the gov’t has to make decisions about what to teach and fund. That, in fact, is exactly why religion is kept out of the funding, and the teaching, of science, because the real legal issue is freedom of religion, and not even the importance of teaching science. You have no business having your religious ideas funded from the taxpayers’ dollars.
Your mindless smear has nothing to do with it. You aren’t being kept ignorant by the gov’t, you want the gov’t to keep children ignorant and to teach them falsehoods.
–A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.”–
Ah yes, the dishonest comparison and the twisting of words by these “righteous” people who try to smear us. I didn’t even come close to saying that any human being of any race, religion, belief, ethnicity, or IQ level doesn’t belong anywhere that anyone else does. I said that I was trying to keep RELIGION out of where it doesn’t belong, which is entangled in a government which is bound by the constitution not to establish any religion.
–I find this comment of yours very offensive.–
I find your unintelligent and faulty analogy to be offensive in the extreme, and your attempt to compare keeping a potentially controlling system of thought from controlling the schools and the government as being akin to keeping a person out of somewhere due to race to be highly tendentious and beneath contempt.
–Who are you to judge where religion does not belong?–
First off, I have no power to say where it belongs. Secondly, I am a reasonable man who has argued these things out like an intellectual, not a blustering bully like your presentation makes you out to be.
–If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does. Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing.–
Sorry, we’re not arguing about whether or not Xians have the rights that everyone else does to free speech, free expression in general, and free public assembly. I am entirely in favor of the First Amendment, which you seem to oppose.
–Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet?–
Do you want to attack strawmen all day? I repeat, I want to keep religion out of where it doesn’t belong, and it belongs in Xians, who are free in this society.
–Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of.–
Since the idea that I oppose the freedom of Jews and Muslims is entirely of your own malicious and/or ignorant making, I point out again what a dishonest attack you make upon me. It appears that the words of an honest non-theist such as myself in favor of the First Amendment is, in your mind, justification for a host of false charges.
–Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them. Ben you need to release your film ASAP.–
Apparently you haven’t picked up any kind of tolerance, rather you promote hatred of those of us who favor the First Amendment. Indeed, with people like you praising the film, it shouldn’t be too hard to demonstrate exactly why we need to keep religion where it belongs, which is, not acting as an agent of the government to oppress those who disagree with would-be theocrats like Jbagail.
You are one frightening person, Jbagail.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“I find it interesting that so much attention is given to the debate of Intelligent Design vs Evolution.”
Unfortunately, evolution is a scientific field of study that conflicts with a number of religious stories, and many religious people are unwilling to admit that they might possibly have been mistaken.
“The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power.”
Irrelevant to the discussion.
“Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist.”
Irrelevant to the discussion. Also, you are attempting to equate a general state of theism to a single belief in a specific deity. This is a false equivocation.
“I think it should be the other way around.”
Then you are incorrect. The burden of proof always falls to the positive claimant; those asserting the existence of an entity have the burden of demonstrating the existence of this entity. Moreover, none of that is relevant to the theory of evolution.
Your Biblical arguments just go furthe off topic while exposing your ethnocentrism.
September 11th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“Is this like keeping Blacks out from where they do not belong?”
No. This is a completely invalid analogy.
“A black female relative of mine was murdered many years ago and the male killer got 6 months because she was where “she didn’t belong.””
This tragedy is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Your attempt to inject this bit of utterly irrelevant emotionalism into the discussion is shamelessly dishonest.
“I find this comment of yours very offensive.”
Then you’re an emotional twit who needs to get a grip on reality.
“Who are you to judge where religion does not belong?”
Apparently he is someone who understands the nature of science, which cannot allow religious interference.
“If a man is a Christian he should act like a Christian in everything he does.”
Non-sequitur.
“Many people feel a Sunday Christian is not a good thing.”
Non-sequitur.
“Glen, do you want Christians to go into the closet?”
Glen said no such thing. It would appear that you are resorting to outright lies because you have no facts from which to build an argument.
“Is this what you want? What about Jews? Shall they go into the closet? We have a Jew and also a Muslim at the University, and both talk about their faith almost every chance that they get (tactfully) and, frankly, I enjoy their company as does everyone else I am aware of. Where I work we stress tolerance for all religions. I have learned much from them.”
Great. The fact remains that if someone allows personal religious convictions to affect their conclusions when doing a study, they are not doing science. Ranting and raving about religious tolerance and shamelessly bringing up a tragic murder will not change this fact.
“Ben you need to release your film ASAP.”
Why? It won’t justify the dishonest rantings of people like yourself.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Ken Miller’s brilliant explanation is all you need to see why Intelligent Design is not a real theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
It tears apart Michael Behe’s Irreducible complexity.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
[…] No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein? We thought you would like to read Stein’s new blog on the movie, where he says, among other things: Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists […]
September 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Craig said:
“So, out of curiosity, how long ago do you think the dinosaurs really lived and why do you think so?”
I think that they were created on days five (aquatic dinosaurs) and six (land dinosaurs) of creation week, as it says in the book of Genesis. According to the genealogies listed in the Bible, when added together, date back about 4000 years before Christ (4000 B.C.). If you refer to my post #555, about the eighth paragraph down (the gigantic one), somewhere in the middle, I presented a brief theory about the existence (or lack thereof) of dinosaurs. The reason I “think so,” is because I believe in the veracity and authority of the Bible as not only the inspired Word of God, but also as a written account of history; which, by the way, is supported on many levels archeologically. The discoveries of mummified dinosaurs and dino soft-tissue, as well as the many conflicting dates and the admitted foundation of unverifiable assumptions that radiometric dating is built upon, simply validate ever further the authenticity of scriptural history.
September 11th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I’m sure the viscous criticism was expected, hence; “EXPELLED: the movie”
Sooooo predictable of avid “evolutionism”. If it wasn’t for the lack of physical blood, “evolutionism” would be considered a terrorist war on the prominent design of intelligence in ALL nature. Maybe the molecules will reconfigure some day to appease “evolutionism”.
Excellent premise for a movie! Maybe this type of entertainment will help, at least a little, if educational systems “really” want minds open for learning. It doesn’t take mindlessness to believe in intelligent design but it does to ignore it all together.
www.unidiversal.com
September 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
I had a big long argument prepared, but this guy said it so much better than I could.
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/08/ben-steins-expelled.html
One thing from me though. Regarding name calling of proponents of Intelligent Design. Normally I would oppose ridiculing people with different world views. However I believe ID proponents are liars of the first order. I’m not alone in that opinion, Judge Jones that tried the Dover ID case said it first and said it officially.
I seriously doubt ID proponents believe in ID themselves. ID is just a sham to promote religion at the expense of science. It’s a case the end (A Religious America) justifies the means (Fraud & Perjury). These people are totally lacking morals and deserve whatever name calling comes their way.
As for Ben Stein, what ever credibility he once had is now gone. He will now be viewed as a person without honour or integrity. When you roll around with pigs don’t be surprised if you get up stinky.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
For the novice, repeat after me:
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact.
Macroevolution is a fact…….
Keep repeating until you attain a comfortable level of belief. It actually has worked for many in the scientific community. Moreover, the proof is in the numbers. There are more scientists who are believers than non-believers and if there was a vote the believers win.
If at any time you start to waver just repeat the mantra over and over again until all doubt fades away. Given enough time you will evolve into a true believer.
September 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
thanks DIMENSIO! the old “that question is irrelevant” response. I love that.
are you a raelian? come on..you’re a raelian aren’t you?
September 11th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Bless you Brian Barkley (Comment 1191). What a profound and reasoned response. So why are the neo-Darwinist responses so different? So angry and fearful? So vitriolic and repressive? Hmmmmm…..
September 11th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
“Do you know how many careers have been ruined, degrees denied, employment terminated and, as a result, lives ruined, divorces and even suicides that have resulted because of the persecution by Darwin Fundamentalists in this country? ”
Please, spare us the melodrama of completely unsubstantiated assertions.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“There was a show trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, two years ago, in which a local school board was prosecuted for having permitted the teaching of intelligent design.”
Yes. After the defendants lost so spectacularly, the ID pushers quickly moved to call it a “show trial” and a “sham” ruling by an “activist judge”. Of course, they don’t actually comment on the merit (or lack thereof) of the school board’s case. It’s far easier to toss out cheap one-liners than to actually address reality.
Note that it was more than “allowing” the teaching of intelligent design that motivated the lawsuit. It was the blatant introduction of non-scientific claims into a science classroom with demonstratble religious motive. But the ID pushers won’t admit this, because they don’t like addressing inconvenient facts.
“This was publicized by the liberal media as, “Another Scopes trial in America!””
Remember: when reported facts are unfavourable to your position, denounce the “liberal media” (or “biased media”) for reporting them.
“The defense called Michael Behe, so the plaintiffs brought Eric Rothschild, a high-powered attorney, to lure him into verbal traps.”
You mean like getting him to admit that his claims have no real scientific backing whatsoever?
“Rothschild made tendentious points on the definition of “science.””
Yes, like actually pointing out how ID fails to meet the criteria of science.
I note that the source that you’ve plagarized doesn’t actually explain what is wrong with Rothschild’s argument. That might reqire actual thought.
“Behe wouldn’t play, and noted, rather dryly, that if the current official definition of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were enforced, most major advances in modern science would have to be ruled illegal.”
And because Behe said it, it *must* be true?
(Can you even point out where Behe made the claim? That’s a new one on me).
“Rothschild then paraphrased Behe’s position as, “So you believe astrology is valid science.” Needless to say, Behe demurred.”
No, Behe actually stated that, under his definition of “science”, astrology would qualify as “science”.
FROM THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT:
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
This was then reported, in the liberal science press, with the triumphalist flavor of, “Behe forced to admit that astrology is valid science according to his definition.”
Those are Behe’s own words. He flat-out stated that under the definition of “science” that he wishes to impose (which is NOT the current accepted definition of “science”), astrology would qualify as a scientific theory.
You can’t spin this and claim to have any intellectual credibility.
“And now, in letter after letter I receive, the Darwinists have simplified this to, “Behe also believes in astrology.””
Yet I can’t find a single example of a “Darwinist” making this claim. I’ve not encountered a single individual who has claimed that Behe believes in astrology. There is a simple explanation for this: YOU ARE A LIAR.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“The discoveries of mummified dinosaurs and dino soft-tissue,”
Common creationist misrepresentation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html
“as well as the many conflicting dates and the admitted foundation of unverifiable assumptions that radiometric dating is built upon,”
Which, I notice, that you do not substantiate in any way.
“simply validate ever further the authenticity of scriptural history.”
False dilemma. Even discovering that all current dating methods used to establish the currently accepted age of the earth would not, in any way, demonstrate that the earth’s age correspond’s to anyone’s calculations derived from a religious text. You cannot prove the Biblical creation account by merely disproving existing accepted scientific claims regarding earth and life origins.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
“I’m sure the viscous criticism was expected, hence; “EXPELLED: the movie”
Sooooo predictable of avid “evolutionism”. If it wasn’t for the lack of physical blood, “evolutionism” would be considered a terrorist war on the prominent design of intelligence in ALL nature. Maybe the molecules will reconfigure some day to appease “evolutionism”.”
And maybe some day an evolution attacker will present an argument of substance rather than a blatant personal attack on all who accept evolution as valid science and reject ID. Today, however, is clearly not that day.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I see DaveScot, aka David Springer, is willing to lift Glen Davidson’s ban at Uncommon Descent provided he is civil. How considerate it is of Springer to allow back a Darwinian blow hard just so he can throw him out again whenever he feels like it.
That takes real courage Dave. Why don’t you lift my ban, one you twice executed. I at least have credentials as a scientist who has published several refereed papers dealing with the great mystery of organic evolution. What has any denizen of Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula, EvC or ARN ever published on that subject? What does it mean to invite such trash back to Uncommon Descent? Is it just to satisfy your insatiable need for power? Apparently, judging from your long history as the biggest bully in cyberdom, that is all that it is. Why Dembski tolerates you is a mystery. You don’t believe a thing he stands for. An alternative explanation is that you are now in complete charge there. That is how it looks to this old investigator.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Jacob Evilsizor said: “admitted foundation of unverifiable assumptions that radiometric dating is built upon”
This is not true at all. The assumptions behind radiometric dating are not unverifiable. Quite the opposite in fact.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Brian Barkley said: “That does not mean, however, that there is not evidence of God’s existence. The Bible declares, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.”
The thing is, you can’t use the Bible as evidence of the existence of God because that’s a circular argument. Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is accurate? Because it’s the word of God.
“In addition to the Biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument.”
The ontological argument has a lot of problems. Rather than go into them here, I’ll just point to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
“A second is the teleological argument. The teleological argument is that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. For example, if earth were even a few hundred miles closer or further away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does.”
This is flatly untrue. The distance from the Earth to the Sun varies by *millions* of miles over the course of the year, but we’re still here.
The reason the universe appears to be designed for us is that we evolved to live in it. Your argument is basically expressing amazement that fish are always surrounded by water, so it must have been God that put the water there. Also, if the universe was built for us to live in it, why is that vast, VAST majority of it cold vacuum and most of the remainder hot gas?
“If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, every living thing on earth would die.”
This also isn’t true, seeing as the makeup of the atmosphere has changed quite a bit over the eons.
“The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s).”
This is only true if you assume that the protein would need to be formed all at once and if there were no laws of chemistry. What you’re saying is that since the odds of billions of water molecules coming together randomly to form a snowflake are astronomical, snow doesn’t exist.
“A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause.”
This falls apart right at the beginning. There are uncaused quantum-level events occurring all the time, everywhere.
“Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God.”
But if God can be uncaused, why not eliminate the middle man and say the universe can be uncaused?
“Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?”
It might have been a form of social evolution. The tribes/groups that didn’t have these kinds of laws didn’t survive as well as the ones that did. Also, if morals can only come from God, why are there no mobs of atheists burning and raping their way across the land?
“I believe that is why evolution is so strongly clung to by many in our society”
No, the reason it’s “clung to” is because the evidence suggests that it’s true. Do you think that the reason we cling to the germ theory of disease is that it denies the existence of the demons of ill health?
September 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Hi again Marilyn,
Of course, when a mostly complete skull is found, we can get a better picture of what the person (or whatever) looked like in real life. But we can learn quite a bit even from fragments. And if a critter is known only through small fragments, scientists can re-evaluate things should more complete remains be found.
As for grave goods, it depends on the culture the person belonged to. I’m sure you learned about ancient Egyptian burials in school.
I remember at the “Dark Caves, Bright Visions” exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History (it was about prehistoric art) they showed beads recovered at ancient gravesites. Would you believe that it would take about an hour to make each bead?
Another example of grave goods:
Here is a transcript from the science show NOVA about the “Siberian Ice Maiden.” It’s pretty amazing what they buried her with. Note that a forensic pathologist was called in to determine whether the hole in her skull was made before death or after:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2517siberian.html
As for telling if a person had a chubby face or not– I don’t think they can tell that. I would guess that few in prehistoric times had chubby faces. It’s only in modern times that people (and animals) could be free of parasites.
The bones of the Neanderthals often show signs of terrible injuries and diseases from malnutrition, so they probably didn’t have fat faces! (but you can bet the females probably received very THIN paychecks!)
September 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I think Romans 20-25 sums up best the cause for those who believe in the absurd theory of evolution. All God fearing people here know that those who hold evolution to be true are spiritually blind; this is not an issue about science at all but rather dark hearts that want to be their own gods with no accountably. How could random molecules have combined (no matter how much time allowed) to form a cell or even amino acids the building blocks of life? I feel arguing with evolutionists is a total waste of time. Unless they get saved they will continue in darkness. I feel the only purpose for teaching creation science and ID is to educate believers so they can easily confront all goofy evolutionally statements.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Ben,
It’s been entertaining to read your email. Glad you have a thick skin! It is a reflection on the emotion that is tied to this issue. Takes me back to my 10th grade biology class in a public school in Miami, Florida. The science teacher wanted a show of hands as to who still believed in anything other than evolution. After raising my hand, I was ridiculed and basically told there was NO DISCUSSION in the matter…that was in 1970! Why the fear and loathing over having the freedom to discuss other views…maybe you were born for this moment…
Diane
September 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design. One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people. First of all, you don’t have to believe in God to believe in ID, just that someone or something bigger than us was responsible for our creation, if you take all of the real scientific data, not just opinions or falsified reports, in fact, if you just use common sense, you will realize that the THEORY of evolution is absolutely ridiculous, so that is what the evolutionists say about the IDs but really, can you honestly believe that basically nothing turned into something and evolved into us? Even if you do believe that, you have no answer to the very beginning and no proof of our evolving from one species to another. From there, you can believe in ID or even something else, but the point is that it is not right to push one crazy THEORY as a fact while calling another crazy - if people would just think for themselves for a second instead of blindly following what popular biased scientists and liberal media tell them to think.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“thanks DIMENSIO! the old “that question is irrelevant” response. I love that.”
Good. Your question is, in fact, not relevant.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“If at any time you start to waver just repeat the mantra over and over again until all doubt fades away. Given enough time you will evolve into a true believer.”
Once again, an ID proponent completely disregards any appeal to fact, instead resorting to strawman.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Glen Davidson,
Please knock off the insults and get back into the business of substantive discourse.
Intelligent design is in no way dependent on religion, nor has Dembski ever defined it that way. Here is one of the many ways he has expressed it::
“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking. Its focus is not a designers mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign). What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”
As everyone knows (including you, I trust) Barbara Forrest pulled the quote about “logos theory” to make it appear that ID is religious based. As it turns out, Dembski made that comment discussing intelligent design in the context of its relationship with theology and metaphysics for a Christian audience. Unlike many scientists, Dembski is formally trained in philosophy and theology–not just science. That means, of course, that he is qualified to discuss controversies that appear at the intersection of science and philosophy, an attribute that not everyone in this dialogue can lay claim to.
From a Christian’s faith perspective, intelligent design does have religious implications, of course. But the methodology itself is scientific, as Dembski pointed out earlier in the same discussion. To ignore the distinction is to violate reasonable standards of fairness.
If it is not asking too much, please limit your response to this one subject
September 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
“I think Romans 20-25 sums up best the cause for those who believe in the absurd theory of evolution.”
Fallacy of assuming your conclusion; you have failed to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is “absurd”.
“All God fearing people here know that those who hold evolution to be true are spiritually blind;”
Poisoning the well fallacy.
“this is not an issue about science at all but rather dark hearts that want to be their own gods with no accountably.”
Strawman.
“How could random molecules have combined (no matter how much time allowed) to form a cell or even amino acids the building blocks of life?”
Non-sequitur; the above has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“I feel arguing with evolutionists is a total waste of time.”
This would explain your total ignorance on the subject. Apparently you spout false claims and logical fallacies, and then run off like a coward without making any attempt to understand the actual facts.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Nice statements of ignorance Dan.
“I think Romans 20-25 sums up best the cause for those who believe in the absurd theory of evolution.”
Evolution is fact, we observe it and if you didn’t get your hair color from you parents and grandparents I guess you want to believe that you are a product of immaculate conception. Arrogance, I think so. Einstein would find you blind.
“All God fearing people here know that those who hold evolution to be true are spiritually blind; “
Nice statement of arrogance and self righteousness here. Many of us believe in some form of Creationism or Intelligent Design, most who actually practice and study science know that such beliefs are matters of to faith and not repeatable observational evidence, hence not science.
“this is not an issue about science at all but rather dark hearts that want to be their own gods with no accountably.”
No, this is an issue of SCIENCE and truth. Since this is science, we follow the standards set by science; not religion.
“How could random molecules have combined (no matter how much time allowed) to form a cell or even amino acids the building blocks of life?”
This is not a surprising statement of ignorance which most creationist and Intelligent Design’ist propagandists make. Darwin’s theory of evolution is about how life evolves not how life started. There are many hypothesis on Abiogenesis, it is still being developed and research and has a way to go before it can become a unified theory.
Before denouncing the unified theory of evolution, maybe you should do some research and study some real science from a real academic institution and not a religious one (like the Discovery Institute or AiG) that make fallace statements
“I feel arguing with evolutionists is a total waste of time. Unless they get saved they will continue in darkness. I feel the only purpose for teaching creation science and ID is to educate believers so they can easily confront all goofy evolutionally statements.”
It ultimately comes down to whether an individual feels that all beliefs should meet the same standards that we accept for good science or whether we have one set of standards for science or law, and another for religious beliefs.
If you believe that your religious dogmatic standards should be enforced on science and in the school room, I guess you only believe in the First Amendment as long as it fits your religious standards like “God comes first then the truth” I’ll try keep my empirical truths to the standards of science and not the equivocational truths of theism.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Dimensio wrote:
—————————–
“Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
You can’t spin this and claim to have any intellectual credibility.”
————————
Your selective quoting is interesting to say the least.
Behe immediately went on to say:
“And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories”
September 12th, 2007 at 8:39 am
For the novice, repeat after me:
Macroevolution is NOT a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT>/b> a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT a fact.
Macroevolution is NOT a fact…….
Keep repeating until you attain a comfortable level of belief. It actually has worked for many in the scientific community. Moreover, the proof is in the numbers. There are more scientists who are believers than non-believers and if there was a vote the believers win.
If at any time you start to waver just repeat the mantra over and over again until all doubt fades away. Given enough time you will intelligently become a true believer.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
While it is certainly true that ID is baloney, I find it hilarious that many of the posters here maintain that today’s science is the pristine pursuit of fact supported by repeatable, provable evidence. That is certainly the ideal of science, but in practice, it is hardly the case. Science is nothing if not the support of predetermined conclusions for political purposes. One need only look at the fraud of secondhand smoke “science” or the political lynching of anyone who doesn’t accept anthropomorphic global warming to see that science is politics. If you don’t think so, ask yourself how many scientific studies are published that damage the interests of the funders of those studies.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I once wrote an entertaining account of my autistic son and our experience with a bunch of psychologists during a time when autism was believed to be caused by maternal rejection. Parents rebelled against the theory, and parents of autistic children are no longer subjected to psychiatric treatment. However I finally had my story published for the enjoyment of my grandchildren and descendents. iUniverse will supposedly publish anything for a modest fee.
I recently became interested in the debate over materialism. I’m not committed to any specific non materialist scientific theory, but I am passionate about academic freedom. I hate the tactics materialists use to stifle criticism of their materialistic formulas — such as the notion that “natural selection” (the grim reaper) is capable of organizing genetic accidents (random mutations) into complex biological systems. Materialists denounce all critics of RM&N as “ignorant creationists”. So I rewrote my story, adding a few questions about materialism to each chapter. “What is intelligence?” “Does free will exist?” “Does belief in an immaterial soul require belief in a personal God?” etc., and asked iUniverse to republish it.
They refused, claiming they feared they might be sued. I offered to remove anything that might cause potential law suits, but they still refused.
Who is going to sue them? Freud? I gave all the doctors in my book an opportunity to read what a I wrote about them, and they had no comment. Besides, I never used real names. The only difference between the book iUniverse published and the book they refused to publish were those questions about materialism. Do they fear the materialists?
You can read the story, with the questions, at:
http://30145.myauthorsite/com
and judge the potential for libel for yourselves.
Berthajane Vandegrift
September 12th, 2007 at 9:49 am
It is ironic that the mere mention of ID creates such a vitriolic reaction amongst so many who condescendingly deem the attempt at dialogue to be so beneath them. Smugness aside, the real issue is that the naturalist, neo-darwinian “traditionalist” as well as those who might pursue ID are both using metaphysical presuppositions from which they begin there observations. To claim otherwise is foolish. ID does not threaten science, it only threatens the philosophical underpinnings of the “scientific” community; culture.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Davidson, I was referring to you. Recently we’ve been talking a lot about Frontloading which is congruent with your PEH. Apologize to me here and all will be forgiven and you may return.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Typo on teh previous posts, I meant “Davison” not “Davidson”.I will use JAD from now on. How about it John? Apologize here and come back.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
# DAVESCOT Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Davidson, I will lift your ban at Uncommon Descent if you can be civil.
Great to see you out and about again, Dave. I thought you had retreated to the UD laager permanently. Just to clarify, are you re-inviting Glen (who apart from the odd hissy fit, usually manages to remain civil if somewhat verbose) or was Davidson a typo and you meant to address John (who possibly has overstepped the bounds of propriety on occasion). I am sure UD can restore its rightful place in the blogosphere with some insightful input from JAD.
Shame about the informatics thingie. Bill could do with a bit of good publicity to boost those book sales which must be flagging a bit since Dover.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Just a few comments about the origin of life and thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs applies in both open and closed systems. It is also true that in the early earth there was plenty of energy available from the sun. It is also true that an acorn only needs water, sun and soil to germinate and grow into a mighty oak tree. This can all seem to argue that life could have arisen on an early earth as a localized decrease in entropy as the rest of the universe necessarily increases in entropy.
But that’s not the whole story. An acorn also needs a genetic blueprint and cellular machinery to take the raw ingrdients of sun, water and soil and grow into a tree. And raw energy from the sun is rather impotent without some kind of energy conversion mechanism to harness that energy for useful cell building work. Today that role is primarily filled by the process of photosynthesis.
In the early earth, if we are going to go from raw chemicals, water and solar energy to even a simplified first cell, there is a desperate need for some kind of energy conversion mechanism. Applying raw undirected energy to a system of chemicals is almost always going to be destructive not constructive.
Requiring some kind of energy conversion mechanism apart from cellular machinery before there were cells seems to require some kind of intelligent input. Something has to manipulate the molecules. And what about the first cellular information blueprint? All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence.
Packaged energy for cellular processes and genetic information scream for an intelligent precursor.
Compounding the equation is the apparent necessity for this to be a rapid process since fossilized remnants of bacterial life have been dated at around 3.6 or 3.7 billion years old, only a 100 million years or so after the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow life to survive and the major meteoric bombardment had let up.
You can find the full thermodynamic equations in Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen’s book, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” It’s critique of chemical evolution scenarios remains valid. If you’re going to rely purely on chemical and geological forces to account for the origin of life, you just can’t get there from here.
I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.
RB
September 12th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Alan Fox, I don’t visit your blog because the readership is so tiny it would be a pointless endeavour. JAD, please not your papers are prominently displayed in the side bar at the new “Uncommon Descent”.
Now how about that apology?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
““And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences.”
And he’s WRONG. A theory is made up of more than logical inferences; it must also incorporate known extant mechanisms, it must make useful predictions and there must exist known, justified criteria for falsification.
What is the known, extant mechanism of “Intelligent Design” (note: I’ve stated the mechanism of evolution on more than one occasion)?
September 12th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“ID is just a sham to promote religion at the expense of science.”
Totally false. What about the atheists that accept ID? I know a number who fit this category.
What about the atheists who accepted ID first than became Christians after? I know many persons who fit this category.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Gee, what does - Common creationist misrepresentation mean? Well …
“Since they do not agree w/ Darwinism evolution, they are first and foremost wrong. The same applies to ID’ers as well. There are scientists who are creationists and ID’ers, but they don’t maintain that Darwinism mentality, so automatically, they are disqualified to make any statements, no matter what their opinions may be. All scientists are therefore to bow down to the god of Darwinism evolution. Darwinism means suppression of the mind, and are taught to not think outside of their common belief. Their (Darwinists) confessions should take place in the bathroom, where a picture of Charles Darwin is airbrushed in the bottom of the bowl. That way, all their nonsense can go “whoosh!” where it belongs.
One must remember, that Darwinism evolution had NEVER misrepresented anything, has always been truthful, and can interpret the way they want, they can ignore science, they are untouchable. They don’t need to play by the rules of the scientific world at all. They can and will make any information fit their belief. With no regard to how ridiculous it sounds.
Darwinism evolutionists are wedded to materialist philosophy (and self-servingly make this a defining characteristic of ‘science’)— so the data cannot for them mean that evolution did not occur. It’s ‘a fact’. Meaning they did not have to play to the rules of the game. In other words, they either don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately just ignore them.’ They are authorities on the word of life. Everyone else outside of Darwinism thinking is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!
People are pointed to read their little websites, saying MACROEVOLUTIN is fact. Even though they don’t have proof, it is still fact. One must believe it. But, if they are directed to read other interpretations, of other scientists, they either ignore it or say it’s a lie, it’s misrepresentation. It’s very apparent how closed minded some ppl actually are. That all non-Darwinism scientists don’t know their arse from a hole in the ground. ONLY DARWINISM EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NEVER EVER WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. AND IF THEY ARE WRONG. NO BIGGIE. THEY JUST MAKE UP B.S. TO COVER THEIR ASSES.
Give it up, please!!! Stop the BS of macroevolution, the stupid whale and horse evolution and all the MISREPRESENTED CRAP THAT THE WORLD IS DECEIVED WITH! I’m sure natural science can offer much, but stop using it as a weapon to support long dead ideas!!!! The evidence that they hide from the public will come out.
Darwinism evolution will eventually dig themselves a hole in the ground anyhow.
SO, go ahead and continue with banana in one hand and your shield of leaves and twigs and defend a lie. When Darwinism evolution finally says, it’s not true, I bet you’ll still defend it, because it just has to be true.
And if macroevolution is true, there is no reason to think it has stopped. And it’s not because things became Stable. How does anyone know that it became stable??????? What proof and evidence do they have to say things became STABLE? Because Nothing Evolves anymore? The reason we don’t see things evolving (in the sense of Darwinism evolution) today, IS BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Do your homework, you expect everyone else to read your stuff on so called FACTS OF EVOLUTION!!!! I’ve read your stuff with an open mind, and still find it NOT BELIEVABLE. I don’t have to believe cause you say so. Just like you don’t have to believe outside your little world of Darwinism evolution. But, at least approach it with critical thinking skills, use common sense and logic.
AND LIFE DID NOT COME FROM NON LIFE!!! No one had proved it did. No OOZEPOOL was responsible for starting anything, and the BIG BANG will someday go ‘poof’ and disappear.
So, go ahead and insult me all you want, remember the saying sticks and stones …
Darwinism evolution is dogmatic, suppression of the mind, a big propaganda, and very unilateral. And I Can say whatever I please, just as you say whatever you please. It’s not irrelevant, just because you say so. You are not God, you are not the AUTHORITIVE one!!! You don’t make the rules. (b>Unless you are a scientist and can absolutely prove and present evidence that life came from non-life, I’ll believe that Darwinism evolution happened.
It is very convenient to use the (theory of evolution, Darwinism, particles-to-people evolution, molecules-to-man evolution) because it all stopped thousands and thousands of years ago. It’s easy to take a bunch of skulls ranging from ape to man, and imagine macroevolution. As I said in an earlier post, punctuated equilibrium was invented because no transitional fossils support slow evolution. And things did not evolve on a much quicker scale either.
If Darwinism evolution were ACTUAL FACT, there wouldn’t be a need for anyone to dispute or debate anything. But since it continually can’t provide proof and evidence, there must be a reason for questioning it in the first place. No one questions actual facts.
So, Dimensio, hit me with your best shot and pick apart my post as well again. You somehow think you’re very good at it. 9_9
September 12th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
–Glen Davidson,
Please knock off the insults and get back into the business of substantive discourse. –
I’m the only one of the two of us who has brought any substantive discourse into the discussion. Your inability to address anything properly is what I have to address, since you ignore almost everything that I actually write, and turn to repeat some meaningless claim that you made previously and of which you didn’t understand the reply which was made to it.
It’s interesting how quickly someone like you who came in with a completely false charge against me faults me for supposedly not engaging in substantive discourse. Also, when you haven’t begun to address anything substantive that I’ve written.
–Intelligent design is in no way dependent on religion, nor has Dembski ever defined it that way.–
I wish you could actually make a point that would have some intellectual meaning. I know how dishonest Dembski is about ID, and I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined it as dependent on religion (it would hurt the legal case if the truth were told). That it is dependent upon religion is the substantive issue, the one that you haven’t begun to address.
–Here is one of the many ways he has expressed it::–
Do you dream that we haven’t heard the droning claptrap of the ignorant Dembski over and over again? What’s important is that we’re independently capable of evaluating ID apart from the bogus claims of those who want to pretend that it is science, when that is the least plausible claim that it makes.
–“Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence.–
The trouble is, it doesn’t. What Dembski does is to claim that simple but “unlikely” design is complex, contrary to any meaning of that term. Then he tries to claim that design is detected by his measure of “complexity,” completely ignoring the fact that we rely most of all upon the marks of rational thought which are visible in designed objects, and also upon any evident purpose, novelty, and “borrowing” for an obvious or a non-obvious reason. What Dembski states is hardly credible.
–”Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking.–
Of course it doesn’t. That’s because their “designer” is inscrutable, just like Maimonides’, or to a lesser extent, Aquinas’s God. The “Designer” also is apparently capable of fine-tuning the universe, which in ID circles means some nearly-omnipotent Being (that we might be in a simulation is speculated on by non-IDists, in which case it might be a guy sitting around, drinking beer and playing a video game. Not the scenario proposed by IDists).
Actual science is concerned about anything that can be deduced from a putative cause, while the IDists are not concerned about investigable causes. We’d be intensely interested in the mind and purposes of a real designer, if you people would actually come up with something for once.
Thanks for pointing out how unlike science ID is.
–”Its focus is not a designers mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign).–
Dembski doesn’t even know how to use the terms “sign” an “signified” properly. The mind that creates is not what is signified by the object, except in unusual self-referential cases (I don’t dispute that some aspect of mind is essentially signified in “signifying something else,” but that’s already understood by actual scientists). The sign or object often does signify something, but something other than the mind that creates it. Dembski either ignorantly or deceitfully switches the meaning of words to avoid the fact that a real designer would indeed be expected to put signification into said designer’s object, and this might actually tell us something about that mind (as it does with humans).
But of course Dembski’s “Designer” is like the philosopher’s God, hence one isn’t supposed to speculate about this God, uh, “Designer”. Once again, completely unlike how real science operates.
–”What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest).–
Why yes, apparently the “Designer” thinks in genetic algorithms, because instead of ever producing anything that appears like designed objects do, this “designer” is making organisms appear as if they had evolved.
–”But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design.–
How convenient, and how unlike real science. In real science, you have to know something about the cause in order to match it with its hypothesized effects (and ID cannot honestly predict complexity or simplicity, let alone pretend that complexity can only come about through the divine, er, the inscrutable designer). So Dembski declaims any concern about the actual cause, yet insists that life is its effect. That’s bogus philosophy, let alone being pseudoscience.
–”As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.”–
Yes, we’ll ignore the cause, and claim the effect. That’s certainly not science, rather it is what is often known from religion.
–As everyone knows (including you, I trust) Barbara Forrest pulled the quote about “logos theory” to make it appear that ID is religious based.–
Simpleton, of course it was pulled out in order to provide evidence (you know, what none of you people ever provide) for the obvious fact that ID is about religion. Dembski said, it, quit pretending that there’s anything wrong with using it.
–As it turns out, Dembski made that comment discussing intelligent design in the context of its relationship with theology and metaphysics for a Christian audience.–
Yes, we know that extremely well. During the week, he’s telling us that ID is science. On Sunday, he’s preaching ID as religion. This has been discussed a good deal on forums like Panda’s Thumb, and of course you merely make our point, that not only is ID religion, ID is very dishonest regarding its claims to the contrary.
–Unlike many scientists, Dembski is formally trained in philosophy and theology–not just science.–
Dembski is not formally trained in science (I suppose he’s taken some classes in it, but I have yet to see any indication that he understands it and its methods). Quit coming up with false claims. And he’s not adept in philosophy at large, but only in a kind of metaphysical-religious sort of philosophy.
–That means, of course, that he is qualified to discuss controversies that appear at the intersection of science and philosophy,–
Only if he actually understands philosophy beyond a certain metaphysical ghetto, plus had an understanding of science. I have yet to see him understand any philosophical position that is critical of metaphysics, or science above grade-school level.
–an attribute that not everyone in this dialogue can lay claim to.–
Neither can he. And you certainly evince no knowledge of science or philosophy that would pertain to this subject.
–From a Christian’s faith perspective, intelligent design does have religious implications, of course.–
Ya think? I’d like to see what it has to do with anything other than religion.
–But the methodology itself is scientific,–
You know, it gets very tiresome to read you making the same monotonous claim each time you come in here to reveal still more of your ignorance. I asked you for evidence, for observational data that would support ID. As with all IDists, you utterly and completely fail to get up to the starting point of science, but merely complain whenever we point out how devoid of science content ID obviously is.
–as Dembski pointed out earlier in the same discussion.–
So, you’re resorting to argumentum ad verecundiam. That’s the formal name for your fallacy.
–To ignore the distinction is to violate reasonable standards of fairness. –
And so you convict yourself.
–If it is not asking too much, please limit your response to this one subject–
If it’s not asking too much, please respond intelligently to even one thing that I’ve written. And by the way, the fact that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem. The repetition of untrue claims, fallacies, and your complete inability to broach the issues revolving aroud science and the pseudoscience of ID is unproductive and revelatory of your reliance on the bogus claims of the egregious IDists.
And I already posted this at post #1090, but here is an excerpt of something that one of the writers of this movie posted on a forum regarding ID:
–When I say ID is friendly to belief in God in a way that classical Darwinism is not, what I mean is Darwinism literally has no need for the God hypothesis. According to Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, everything can be explained purely by natural forces–including the origin of information, consciousness, and life itself. If you want to bring God into the picture, that is a belief that you are adding to science. It is not required by the science itself, and many Neo-Darwinists believe it gets in the way of science. ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code.–
Try to understand for once, Kevin Miller is contrasting “Darwinism” with its lack of need for a God with ID’s prior belief that God is at the heart of nature. Of course one could try to bring up the charge of argumentum ad verecundiam, but it won’t work because this is simply an example from a pro-IDist, while I’ve argued the actual case a great deal, here and elsewhere. Not only does Dembski betray his “during the week” claims when he’s selling his book to the rubes, this whole movie happens to be a complaint that we’re supposedly suppressing ID because it is religious (and we are suppressing it along with other bogus “science” in certain venues, but only where religion isn’t supposed to be supported by gov’t, and where our own freedom of speech and association give us the right to do so–along with the other pseudosciences and conspiracy theories).
Perhaps you should actually read Ben’s blog. He doesn’t mention ID, unlike Miller does, but Miller confirms that the movie primarily concerns ID, and the whine is that we’re “keeping God out”. Yes, that’s what science does, unless you can actually come up with evidence that God is a proximal cause. You’d be a whole lot more convincing that ID isn’t about religion if you weren’t commenting under a blog whose main complaint is that ID is being suppressed because, in fact, ID is religious.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 12th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
–I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.–
The typical for a pro-IDist, a simple unsupported ad hominem attack projecting his own faults, and not a single justified response to the great amount of substance written by the pro-science side.
And apparently these geniuses think that Ben and they are supposed to make unwarranted attacks on science, while we sit back and get kicked by their blank disingenuity because “the movie isn’t out yet.” Yes, the movie isn’t out, but Stein is trying to sell it to the rubes with a bunch of nonsense, which, by the way, is what is being addressed far more than the movie.
So what’s new, though? IDists and creationists always try to suppress science with strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 12th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
DaveScot
In post 1235 you asked me to apologize so I can return to Uncommon Descent, but you failed to note what it is I should apologize for. Is it because I have described you as the biggest bully in the history of internet communication? Surely you would never deny that or would you?
It is you that should apologize to everyone for your past history as Dembski’s personally appointed blogcar, a period during which you have banned more posters than all the othe blogczars combined, typically for the slightest of reasons. The last time you banned me is because I sent you a private “abusive email.” You bet I did. You had refused to present my comment which was perfectly innocuous.
I am going to give you an opportunity to mend your ways. I will be happy to return to Uncommon Descent with the following guarantees.
1. I will be free to comment freely so long as my comments are not personally abusive or obscene.
2. My comments will not be edited and will be presented exactly as they are transmitted.
I expect these guarantees from Dembski, not from you. I regard them as reasonable conditions, especially as they are coming from someone who was publishing hard evidence for Intelligent Design long before anyone now involved in the so-called “Intelligent Design Movement.”
I realize that, according to you, Dembski regards me as “nuts.” So far as I know, Dembski has never mentioned my name either on his blog or in his many books, so am uncertain about your claim. Now if Dembski really thinks I am “nuts,” then I am confident he will not approve my readmittance to Uncommon Descent. If he does not, he will readmit me. It is as simple as that.
With this post I have performed an unambiguous experiment and I now await the results.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 12th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Naturally. I expect to hear from Dembski, not from DaveScot, ether here, at “brainstorms” or by private email.
September 12th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The fact is, everything that DImensio has discussed or stated here is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So why does he continue his diatribe?
He’s like the preacher who, in his sermon notes, says, “argument weak, pound pulpit hard.”
He is pounding his non-existent pulpit very hard in this discussion. Why? I can only assume it is because he knows that I.D. is a fact and is in denial about it.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Marilyn said: “Macroevolution is NOT a fact.”
That depends. How do you define macroevolution?
“Moreover, the proof is in the numbers. There are more scientists who are believers than non-believers and if there was a vote the believers win. :)”
I’m not sure what this would prove. There may be more believers than non-believers, but science isn’t a popularity contest. I just read a statistic today that 99% of scientists in the US accept evolution; so they obviously have no problem reconciling their faith with the evidence.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Angela said: “I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design.”
Please don’t use “theory” as though it’s some dirty word that damns evolution to the dustbin. It’s been pointed out many times here that in scientific terms “theory” doesn’t mean “wild guess”. A theory is the best science ever produces.
“One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people.”
Evidence for evolution has also been posted many times.
“First of all, you don’t have to believe in God to believe in ID, just that someone or something bigger than us was responsible for our creation.”
Let me ask you this then. If the “something bigger” is not God, what is it? Was it aliens? Then where did the aliens come from? This is a completely serious question; I’d really like to know who or what the designer is.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Dr. Robert Gentry has some great scientific data on Radiohalos.
Excerpt from article:
“Gentry’s work has never been refuted. But in 1984 the US National Academy of Sciences published a booklet with sweeping criticisms of creation science. Gentry took particular exception to the booklet’s statement that ‘when the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid.’ He eventually issued a public challenge to the academy.
On August 4, 1986, Gentry wrote to the academy and requested a copy of any report the may have had which supposedly invalidated his results. None came. He invited the academy’s president to bring as many evolutionists as he could muster to a scientific presentation of Gentry’s work at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh in August, 1986. They were asked to bring any evidence which they believed invalidated his scientific research, or phone if they could not come.
The academy’s president and his invited team did not even respond to Gentry’s challenge until April 7, 1987, after a lapse of eight months, and after Gentry’s third letter. In his reply, the president of the National Academy of sciences presented no refutation of Gentry’s evidence. He merely reaffirmed evolution. Another invitation to refute Gentry’s work was made to the academy, this time at the University of Tennessee on April 13, 1987. Again no one from the academy turned up. ”
the article may be read here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i2/editorial.asp
other articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v10/i2/time.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/radiohalo.asp
and Dr. Gentry’s site http://www.halos.com/ as well as
http://www.orionfdn.org/
Keep in mind, his worked has never been refuted to this day. Just simply ignored.
All you Darwinians can jump on the band wagon and claim how Dr. Gentry’s work is a lie, misrepresentation, whatever, but I believe ppl can read and see for themselves and decide.
~M
September 13th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Dear Ben,
I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names. I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension. My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution. It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction. It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe. I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.
Keep up the good work.
Josh
September 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
“It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.”
Except for the ones who have been making statements of fact to contradict false ID claims.
” My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.”
Which means that you have no qualifications for speaking on the subject.
“It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction.”
No, it was not even mentioned because the theory of evolution is a theory of biology, and thus has no relation to electrical engineering. I can’t tell if you’re being dishonest or if you’re just really, really dumb.
Why would you think that a college cirriculum on electrical engineering would possibly need to focus upon a theory of bioligical science? Were you required to take any other advanced biological courses in your degree program?
If an English major never takes a French class, is that evidence that French is not a language? If a French History major never takes a course on the US Civil War, does that mean that the US Civil War is not a part of history?
You have accomplished one thing with your statement; you’ve dumbfounded me with a new low in outright creationist dishonesty.
“I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.”
Ah, another ID pusher pushes the tired old lie that all who accept evolution and who reject “Intelligent Design” are atheists. Such shameless dishonesty is disappointing, but never surprising.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
“All you Darwinians can jump on the band wagon and claim how Dr. Gentry’s work is a lie, misrepresentation, whatever, but I believe ppl can read and see for themselves and decide”
Well, the claim that no one has addressed Gentry’s work is a lie.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
But, hey, keep spreading falsehoods. It’s not like creationists have any honest arguments.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:10 am
“I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.”
I guess that you must have missed the posts where people explained the actual problems with ID and with the documentary.
Or, more likely, you dishonestly ignored them.
“I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension.”
Except for that little problem in that it’s not the “truth”.
“My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.”
That’s not surprising, given that Electrical Engineering has nothing to do with biology. This, of course, means that your degree confers upon you no qualifications whatsoever to speak on the subject of evolution, however.
“It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science, not science fiction.”
See, this is where I can’t tell whether you’re really thick-headed or just shamelessly dishonest. Your argument is akin to an Asian History major claiming that, because none of his courses covered the US Civil War, that the US Civil War never happened. It’s absurd. You obtained a degree in a field that does not even tangentially incorporate biological sciences. It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that, as a result, you can conclude that the theory of evolution is not science because your degree program — which does not involve biological sciences at all — did not involve a course wholly rooted in the field of biology.
I will grant you that you’ve shocked me with a new low in shameless dishonesty.
“It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe.”
It saddens me that so many creationists, such as yourself, have to engage in such transparent dishonesty.
“I have studied both evolution and ID. What are those people afraid of? GOD.”
I guess your brazen ranting wouldn’t be complete without the utterly craven lie that all who accept evolution and who reject ID are atheists.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“The fact is, everything that DImensio has discussed or stated here is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”
Everything that I have said is a direct response to someone else. I am not posting in a vaccuum. How, exactly, is directly responding to the claims — often false claims — of others “irrelevant to the discussion at hand” unless it is the people to whom I am responding who are changing the subject beforehand?
September 13th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Josh’s comment has to be the most asinine thing I’ve seen in this discussion yet. He took an EE curriculum and supposed the reason no courses in that curriculum had to do with evolution somehow shows that evolution isn’t “scientific” and doesn’t fit in with engineering.
Hmmm… let’s see… EE has to do with building circuits, evolutuion has to do with processes governing living biological organisms. I can’t imagine why these two fields wouldn’t intersect.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that Josh didn’t have any Astronomy courses in his EE curriculum either. Whoops, I guess Astronomy isn’t a science either!
September 13th, 2007 at 10:24 am
JAD, you are in no position to make terms. Whilst your previous work is good, recently you’ve been in the scientific wilderness and you need Uncommon Descent. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, John. You were personally abuse to me. Say you’re sorry publicly, here, and we’ll call it history and move on.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am
“Gee, what does - Common creationist misrepresentation mean? Well”
It means that a creationist has attributed a claim to the theory of evolution that it does not make. For example, when a creationist claims that the theory of evolution states that “life came from non-life”, they are misrepresenting the theory of evolution, as the theory makes no such claim.
““Since they do not agree w/ Darwinism evolution, they are first and foremost wrong.”
Yes, this is a perfect example of a creationist misrepresentation. I have never claimed that a creationist is “misrepresenting” evolution merely because they do not accept the theory of evolution.
“The same applies to ID’ers as well. There are scientists who are creationists and ID’ers, but they don’t maintain that Darwinism mentality, so automatically, they are disqualified to make any statements, no matter what their opinions may be.”
And again, you make a misrepresentation. Are you trying to offer up examples?
A misrepresentation occurs when a creationist makes a claim about what the theory of evolution states that is demonstratably false. “Evolution is false” is not such a claim. “Evolution says that life came from non-life” is such a claim. A previous poster who characterized the theory of evolution implies that we were “randomly congealed in a pool” is a misrepresentation.
The claim that the Coecalanth specimens found living today are “identical” to the Coelacanth fossil specimens dated at 65 million years is a misrepresentation; they’re not even the same genus, much less the same species, and thus representing the two as “identical” is a demonstratable misrepresentation.
I really shouldn’t have to point this out, but then you’ve decided to make a game of even further misrepresenting things by outright lying about the meaning of my statements.
“All scientists are therefore to bow down to the god of Darwinism evolution.”
Nice strawman, wholly devoid of any basis in reality. And nice use of “Darwinism” as a pejorative. Really shows that you have absolutely no interest in intellectual honesty at all.
“Darwinism means suppression of the mind, and are taught to not think outside of their common belief.”
A statement for which you offer no supporting evidenc. *yawn*
“Their (Darwinists) confessions should take place in the bathroom, where a picture of Charles Darwin is airbrushed in the bottom of the bowl. That way, all their nonsense can go “whoosh!” where it belongs.”
Have any more mindless rhetoric or blithe hyperbole to offer?
“One must remember, that Darwinism evolution had NEVER misrepresented anything, has always been truthful, and can interpret the way they want, they can ignore science, they are untouchable.”
Hey, if you can point out falsehoods, feel free. Tossing out unsupported vague accusations, however, will not demonstrate that your claims are correct.
“They don’t need to play by the rules of the scientific world at all.”
I’m sure that you can support this claim with evidence. Please do so.
“They can and will make any information fit their belief. With no regard to how ridiculous it sounds.”
And your evidence for this claim is?
“Darwinism evolutionists are wedded to materialist philosophy (and self-servingly make this a defining characteristic of ‘science’)— so the data cannot for them mean that evolution did not occur.”
Non-sequitur. All science operates by “materialism”. That does not mean that data contradicting a scientific claim is ignored. I note, also, that you offer no evidence to support your accusations. This isn’t surprising given that your claims have no basis in reality.
“It’s ‘a fact’.”
If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. But then don’t whine if your “evidence” fails to hold up to scrutiny. It’s not arrogance that causes your claims to be rejected, it’s the fact that your claims are demonstratably false.
“Meaning they did not have to play to the rules of the game.”
Unsupported assertion.
“In other words, they either don’t understand the rules of what science is, or they deliberately just ignore them.’ They are authorities on the word of life.”
Unsupported assertion.
“Everyone else outside of Darwinism thinking is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!”
Brilliant characterization supported by no evidence whatsoever.
When claims are made in challenge of the theory of evolution, I address them by pointing out logical flaws or factual errors in the claims. I do not dismiss the claims as “WRONG WRONG WRONG” merely because they challenge the theory of evolution, I actually make an effort to point out the reality that shows that the claims are false.
But, then, if you actually had to acknowledege reality like that, you would have no argument, so instead you dishonestly claim that all objections to creationist and ID claims lack any supporting evidence and are “justified” solely on the basis that the claims contradict the theory of evolution.
“People are pointed to read their little websites, saying MACROEVOLUTIN is fact.”
And your statement shows that you’ve never actually been to a single one of those websites. I guess it’s better to badmouth a source of information when you don’t actually make an effort to understand the information.
“Even though they don’t have proof, it is still fact.”
Actually, “facts” are small things in science. Facts are single-point observations. Theories are much more complex and comprehensive than facts.
Also, science does not deal in “proof”. Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.
“One must believe it.”
Another strawman…
“But, if they are directed to read other interpretations, of other scientists, they either ignore it or say it’s a lie, it’s misrepresentation.”
And then they’ll explain why the “interpretations” are invalid. But you stop reading and pretend that the explanations are never made, because you don’t want to address the reality that creationists and ID pushers don’t tell the truth.
“It’s very apparent how closed minded some ppl actually are.”
Indeed. For example, rather than addressing the substance of rebuttals to creationist claims, they completely ignore that an actual rebuttal was given and instead claim, falsely, that the creationist argument was dismissed just because it disagreed with evolution.
“That all non-Darwinism scientists don’t know their arse from a hole in the ground.”
Who has said this? Please be specific. Cite references.
“ONLY DARWINISM EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE NEVER EVER WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. AND IF THEY ARE WRONG. NO BIGGIE. THEY JUST MAKE UP B.S. TO COVER THEIR ASSES.”
Brilliant strawman. No evidence offered to support your claim, I notice, but then unsubstantiated assertions seem par for the course for you.
“Give it up, please!!! Stop the BS of macroevolution, the stupid whale and horse evolution and all the MISREPRESENTED CRAP THAT THE WORLD IS DECEIVED WITH!”
Maybe you could explain exactly why these things are misrepresentations, rather than just asserting it. It might help your credibility.
“I’m sure natural science can offer much, but stop using it as a weapon to support long dead ideas!!!! The evidence that they hide from the public will come out.”
What evidence is being “hidden”? Please be specific, and show that it is, in fact, being “hidden”.
“Darwinism evolution will eventually dig themselves a hole in the ground anyhow. ”
Yes, “any day now”. Creationists have been predicting that the theory of evolution will come crashing down “real soon now” for the last 150 years. Before that, they were predicting the end of the view that the Earth was more than 6000 years old.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
“SO, go ahead and continue with banana in one hand and your shield of leaves and twigs and defend a lie.”
Demonstrate that it is, in fact, a “lie”.
“When Darwinism evolution finally says, it’s not true, I bet you’ll still defend it, because it just has to be true.”
Brilliant strategy of attacking those who accept evolution for something that they haven’t even done. Really helps your credibility there.
“And if macroevolution is true, there is no reason to think it has stopped.”
And who made the claim that it has?
“And it’s not because things became Stable.”
They’re not, at least not universally.
“How does anyone know that it became stable???????”
Who said that it is “stable”?
“What proof and evidence do they have to say things became STABLE?”
I don’t know. This is your strawman.
“Because Nothing Evolves anymore?”
Whoever told you this was misinformed or lying. Evolution has not stopped.
“The reason we don’t see things evolving (in the sense of Darwinism evolution) today, IS BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!”
Your claim is based upon a false premise. We do see things evolving.
“Do your homework, you expect everyone else to read your stuff on so called FACTS OF EVOLUTION!!!!”
None of which you reference.
“I’ve read your stuff with an open mind, and still find it NOT BELIEVABLE.”
Why not? What are your specific objections? Thus far the most substantiative claim that I’ve seen you make was regarding Coelacanth, and your claim on that was demonstratably false.
“I don’t have to believe cause you say so.”
And I never said that you did. But thanks for the continued lies.
“Just like you don’t have to believe outside your little world of Darwinism evolution. But, at least approach it with critical thinking skills, use common sense and logic.”
I do. That’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that creationists have issues with intellectual honesty.
“AND LIFE DID NOT COME FROM NON LIFE!!!”
As the theory of evolution has nothing to do with “LIFE” coming from “NON LIFE” your statement, while wholly unsupported, is a non-sequitur. You cannot disprove evolution by making unsubstantianted claims about events that are not even relevant to the theory.
“No one had proved it did.”
Who claimed that someone had?
“No OOZEPOOL was responsible for starting anything,”
Which, even if true (and not an oversimplified misrepresentation), is irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
“and the BIG BANG will someday go ‘poof’ and disappear.”
This is also irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and in fact it is irrelevant to the field of biology completely. Why are you bringing up the Big Bang?
“So, go ahead and insult me all you want, remember the saying sticks and stones …”
Yes, I’m aware that many creationists are so thin-skinned that they consider it “insulting” that anyone dares point out their factual errors.
“Darwinism evolution is dogmatic, suppression of the mind, a big propaganda, and very unilateral.”
And you’ve offered no support whatsoever for any of those assertions.
” And I Can say whatever I please, just as you say whatever you please. ”
Sure you can. Doesn’t mean that your claims are true.
“It’s not irrelevant, just because you say so.”
You’re correct. It’s not irrelevant just because I say so. It’s irrelevant because it’s unsubstantiated hyperbole that often has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. I’m just pointing this out. Your claims would still be irrelevant even if I said nothing.
“You are not God, you are not the AUTHORITIVE one!!!”
I never claimed to be.
“You don’t make the rules.”
I don’t claim to make the rules.
” (b>Unless you are a scientist and can absolutely prove and present evidence that life came from non-life, I’ll believe that Darwinism evolution happened.”
Ah, what a dishonest standard. You refuse to accept that evolution occurred unless an event completely seperate from evolution can be demonstrated.
The theory of evolution does not claim that life came from non-life. The theory of evolution does not care at all the origin of the first life forms. Why, then, do you demand that an event be demonstrated that is wholly irrelevant to the theory of evolution before accepting the theory of evolution?
“It is very convenient to use the (theory of evolution, Darwinism, particles-to-people evolution, molecules-to-man evolution) because it all stopped thousands and thousands of years ago.”
First, “particles to people” and “molecules to man” are more misrepresentations. Second, evolution did not “stop” thousands of years ago. That’s another misrepresentation.
Note: I am NOT saying that you are misrepresenting evolution because you do not believe that evolution occured. I am saying that you are misrepresenting evolution because you are making claims about evolution — that it supposedly “stopped” thousands of years ago, and that it covers “molecules to man” — that are not true. The theory of evolution does not cover “molecules to man”. Claiming that it does is a misrepresentation.
“It’s easy to take a bunch of skulls ranging from ape to man, and imagine macroevolution.”
And if this was all that was done, you might have a point. However, the establisment of hominid lineage is actually a more complex field of studies than “taking a bunch of skulls”.
“As I said in an earlier post, punctuated equilibrium was invented because no transitional fossils support slow evolution.”
No, actually there exist a number of transitional fossils ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html ). Punctuated equilibrium exists because biologists recognized that there does not exist uniform selection pressures over time in any given environment. It was suggested in Darwin’s time by Darwin’s own contemporaries.
” And things did not evolve on a much quicker scale either. ”
Do you even understand PE?
“If Darwinism evolution were ACTUAL FACT,”
“Facts” are small things in scienc.
“there wouldn’t be a need for anyone to dispute or debate anything.”
Except that science deals with lots and lots of “facts” (which are small things) at once, which leads to debate about how all of the facts are put together.
But, then, there really isn’t that much debate over whether evolution occurs within the field of science. The debate comes primarily from people who have little or no scientific (or at least biological scientific) background whose objections are purely religious. Many of those people demonstratably do not even understand the claims of the theory that they are attacking.
“But since it continually can’t provide proof and evidence,”
Science does not deal in proof. There is a large amount of evidence. That you refuse to acknowledge its existence does not make it go away.
“there must be a reason for questioning it in the first place.”
Yes, like I said, religion.
“No one questions actual facts.”
You don’t get out much, do you? There are peple who question (or, rather, reject) the rejection of the geocentric model (www.geocentricity.com).
“So, Dimensio, hit me with your best shot and pick apart my post as well again. You somehow think you’re very good at it. 9_9″
September 13th, 2007 at 11:16 am
In message 1243 Glen D chose to only comment on my last statement about my anticipation of the movie that is receiving immense criticism even though it has not been seen yet.
I was disappointed that he did not offer any comment on the more substantive part of my message (1237) about entropy and the origin of life. I addressed this only because some of the earlier messages indeed brought up thermodynamics and the acorn analogy.
I simply offered what I thought was a reasoned response. However I guess I was just guilty of more “strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.”
I have been making this observation for many years. Perhaps Glen D can enlighten me as to why he would characterize my comments this way. I welcome any response.
RB
September 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Horse Evolution:
So what’s the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?
1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!
O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”.
In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.
Read in it’s entirety here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c016.html
Another site here:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html
I put more faith in what is really found as opposed to how the data gets fit into a belief such as Darwinism evolution.
And an article here which states the horse evolution to be false:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution.html
More info:
http://www.rae.org/bits24.htm
September 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
–Dear Ben,
I see by the comments that you’ve ticked off a bunch of Darwinists. It’s interesting that they can only resort to calling you names.–
Where are your answers to the questions and points that I raised in posts #389, #1031, #1065, and #1090, for starters? Oh, you didn’t answer them, did you? You prefer to write the blatantly false claim that we can only call names, when in fact I have not seen much other than name-calling from the creos and IDists, and the little else was recycled nonsense (and we have answered virtually all of it, no matter how tiresome it is to do so).
So your credibility level is—about where Dembski’s is, hovering around zero.
–I just wanted to let you know that I applaud your willingness to put out the truth about the suppression of dissension.–
And you provide as much evidence as Ben did for such flim-flam, none at all. But then the need for evidence famously doesn’t trouble IDists.
–My bachelor’s degree is in electrical engineering. It’s interesting that none of the courses (taught in a secular university) which I took had anything to do with evolution.–
Fascinating that a non-teleological biological process wouldn’t be taught to an engineer. Must mean something, huh? But sadly, Josh can’t quite relate what this meaning is (so he invents it).
–It was never even mentioned because engineering has to do with science,–
Actually, it does not. It has to do with applying the conclusions of science. You’re not the first ID engineer to make the colossal error of thinking that in bypassing science with your engineering degree you have nonetheless become an expert in science.
–not science fiction.–
Gee, imagine anyone resorting to name-calling. Well, it wasn’t me, Dimensio, Craig, or a host of other pro-science commenters who thought that name-calling and false accusations would stand in for discussing science (not that we don’t use the names that fit, certainly), it was the whiner who can’t back up a single claim that he makes.
–It saddens me that most of your critics have never stopped for a moment and questioned what they believe.–
Mere ad hominem, and something that Josh could hardly know. I suspect that many on the pro-science side have seriously studied ID and creationism, like I have by coming from a creationist background. But why should Josh bother telling the truth when Stein’s blog is a mash of untrue claims barely altered from official ID mendacity?
–I have studied both evolution and ID.–
I should think that if you knew anything about evolution you’d be capable of dealing with it in detail. And if you really were a scientist, you’d finally tell us what we’ve been asking for, what is the scientific evidence for ID?
–What are those people afraid of? GOD.–
Why yes, it’s what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Dobzhansky, Father Coyne, Ken Miller, and Francis Collins were all afraid of, God. Oops, no. You’re as wrong about that as you are that engineers study science (aside from a few core courses).
Wow, you got absolutely none of your non-trivial claims right. But that’s as good as most IDists, I’ll admit, so you’re in the right company.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
–I think the negative comments are proof enough of the need to clarify the THEORY of evolution vs. Intelligent Design.–
Yes, negative comments have proven that the city of Atlantis existed, that UFO abductions are a reality, that homeopathy works, that the CIA killed John Kennedy, that our government was responsible for the twin tower attacks, divination by birds, necromancy, Scientology, and Intelligent Design.
See, all you have to do is to make a statement, no matter how absurd, then when someone disagrees, that proves your statement. Anyway, that’s what all of the pseudoscientists tell us.
–One could just as easily ask an evolutionist to come up with real evidence that this THEORY is true as they push on the ID people.–
This tells us all too much about the mentality of most creos and IDists. Darwin published the evidence 150 years ago (accounting for non-teleological aspects (vestigials and some rather odd adaptations) which pointed away from purposeful design–in addition to providing the evidence of common descent itself), and we get the same demand for “evidence” and denial thereof from the sorts of people who never provide evidence for ID. I wonder why they’re so evidence-challenged?
Darwin only began the process of gathering and disseminating the evidence for evolution. Journals are rife with it, of course, though it rarely is called “evidence for evolution” any more than evidence for Newton’s laws of motion is called “evidence for Newtonian laws”–scientists have been satisfied with the evidence for over a century in the case of evolution. And beyond that, people have been repeatedly pointed toward evidence at Talkorigins and blogs which exist just for the purpose of putting out the evidence and discussing it, as well as presented in numerous comments.
It’s sort of what Plato noted in the parable of the cave, that nothing will actually affect people until they actually look. Because few IDists and creos will look at the evidence, or they fail to understand it, the mere fact that we have done what we can to make the evidence available doesn’t prevent the same kinds of demands and questions from being made. This is due to the fact that if they don’t see the evidence, it does the anti-scientists no good at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Myrilyn,
Ah Dr. Gentry been debunked so many times:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=51
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
September 13th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hey, it’s not just ID that’s under assault. Try telling your department head that you believe in astrology, or phrenology, or mystical fairies, and see how many grants you get. Heck, my Uncle was denied tenure in Physics just because he believes in phlogiston. It’s never been disproven by the THEORY of quantum mechanics, dammit! Where’s the documentary for poor, poor phlogiston?
September 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Josh (1250),
How is a degree in Electrical Engineering in any way relevant to evolution? I have degrees in Geology and Computer Science and I’ve never taken any courses on evolution either, even though it’s relevant to Geology. Why? Not because it is science fiction, but because it is essential to the understanding of Geology.
Should universities be intimidated into keeping dissenters in faculty because it offends lay persons sensibilities? Grow up! A Geology professor who believes the Earth has been created with life as it is should be fired because they are incompetent, not because of any dissenting view.
As a simple example, we know the process that leads to coal formation very well. To such an extent that we can predict what areas can potentially have coal deposits. This is based on the type of rock (generally from formally swampy or marshy terrains) as well as the age of the rock (based on when we know that plant life evolved on land, and the length of time needed to convert the plants to coal).
A ‘creationist geologist’ (that even sounds offensive) could not predict anything if their premise is that it was created by G-d. Why wouldn’t G-d put the coal into Cambrian rocks? Or associated with Basalts? Why would a Christian god put oil under Muslim countries? Or uranium in Russian territory? Who would even hire a creationist geologist, other than a head in the ground religious institution?
The ID movement offers NOTHING to science, it is a dishonest socio-political movement with close ties to the religious right. In saying that you’ve studied both evolution and ID I think you are dishonest. You’ve probably only read the laughable ID critique of evolution.
Ken
September 13th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
And it’s not like Darwinism evolutionists have had any honest arguments either.
It doesn’t surprise me that evolutionists will always twist things around to their way.
September 13th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
There is no “Theory of evolution,” only failed hypotheses like Darwinism and Lamarckism and still viable ones like my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which remains in accord with EVERYTHING being revealed, now as in the past, by both the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.
Darwinism is dead as a hammer folks. Get used to it as I have. It is the longest lasting hoax in the history of science, a century and a half of sustained mass hysteria fueled by homozygous ultraliberal atheist worshippers of the Great God Chance.
For Glen Davidson to suggest that Darwinism is a theory of anything shows that he doesn’t know the difference between a theory and an hypothesis. Theories are verified hypotheses.
“Hypotheses don’t stop being hypotheses when a lot of people believe them.”
Boris Ephrussi
Oh but they sure do Boris. Just ask Glen Davidson or any other denizen of After The Bar Closes, where atheist Darwinism reigns supreme.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Why are you people so angry? What are you afraid of? You can’t prove evolution scientificallly any more than you can prove there is a God scientifically. Every experiment that is run has INTELLIGENT intervention, which seems to me - proves intelligent design. I’m not a genius though, maybe that’s my problem.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Glen Davidson,
About me your wrote, …“that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.”
My purpose in zeroing in on a simple point was to provide a little focus for you because you don’t seem to be able to do it for yourself. Apparently, you didn’t get the hint, so I will come out with it. Writing forty of fifty paragraphs when one will suffice does not prove intelligence or knowledge, it only proves verbosity. That your insufferably long posts do not even address the issue is even more annoying. That is why I narrowed the issue to ONE ASPECT OF ONE TOPIC—hint-hint-hint—it’s your cue to make a point, shut up, and get out. The idea is go straight to the issue—not to keep shooting arrows endlessly, hoping that one day you will hit a target,
Your latest offering shoots about thirty more arrows, none of which even make it to the outside ring. My original point was simple: YOUR EXAMPLE citing Dembski’s comment about the Logos theory of the Gospel as proof that ID is faith-based is illogical. Dembski’s statement was made in a theological/philosophical context, and therefore does not relate to the question about whether or not ID’s methodology is empirically based. I showed that your contention was wrong, and I made the point SUCCINCTLY. Incredibly, your interminable response ignores this one and only point. I am therefore left to wonder whether you just like to read your own prose or whether you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Instead you weasel out by saying, “I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined (ID) it as dependant on religion.” Oh no? Well then, what was your point in raising the issue of logos theory in the first place? I didn’t bring it up, you did. Apparently, you will not allow Dembski to define his own theory. If he insists that ID is empirically based, you will simply say, “sorry, we don’t allow people to speak for themselves. We accuse them of being so enamored with their Christianity that they lost all sense of judgment and can’t possibly know where religious faith ends and empirical observation begins.” What bigotry.
Your mission, then, should you choose to accept it, is to defend your ridiculous and bigoted assertion that Dembski’s Theological comment about Logos theory proves that his science is not empirically based. Also, try to make every word count. If you can’t do both, do neither.
September 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
–In message 1243 Glen D chose to only comment on my last statement about my anticipation of the movie that is receiving immense criticism even though it has not been seen yet.–
Since it is a strawman attack, while you avoid what we actually wrote, it seems unlikely that anything else you might write is worthy of comment.
–I was disappointed that he did not offer any comment on the more substantive part of my message (1237) about entropy and the origin of life.–
What’s substantive about it? We’ve read Granville Sewell, who tries to conflate probabilities with entropy, when the two are not about the same things.
–I addressed this only because some of the earlier messages indeed brought up thermodynamics and the acorn analogy.–
Indeed.
–I simply offered what I thought was a reasoned response.–
Well it wasn’t. How about actually addressing some of the many responses that have been made to Sewell and to others who try to shoehorn SLOT into denying evolution?
–However I guess I was just guilty of more “strawman attacks, unsupported demonizations of their opponents, and the most useless “science” arguments that have ever been answered thousands of times without their getting a single clue.”–
Yes, I pointed out how inappropriate your remarks were. Why do you suppose that anyone should care about what you write about entropy when nothing prevents you from unfair characterizations of your opponents? Notably, rather than take back your unfair characterization, you simply move on to more attacks.
But okay, I’ll answer again the most useless “science” arguments that have been answered thousands of times without their getting a clue:
–Just a few comments about the origin of life and thermodynamics. It is certainly the case that the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs applies in both open and closed systems. It is also true that in the early earth there was plenty of energy available from the sun. It is also true that an acorn only needs water, sun and soil to germinate and grow into a mighty oak tree. This can all seem to argue that life could have arisen on an early earth as a localized decrease in entropy as the rest of the universe necessarily increases in entropy.–
It doesn’t speak to the issue of whether or not life could have arisen on an early earth. Probability is not the same as entropy, even if someone like Sewell claims that it is. The point about the sun’s radiance is that SLOT doesn’t rule out increases in order (not the precise language of entropy, but it should be all right for our discussion), and that it can pay for incremental changes during the course of evolution.
I don’t even know why abiogenesis is being brought into this, but again entropic considerations don’t rule it out.
–But that’s not the whole story. An acorn also needs a genetic blueprint and cellular machinery to take the raw ingrdients of sun, water and soil and grow into a tree.–
That’s where evolution comes into the picture.
–And raw energy from the sun is rather impotent without some kind of energy conversion mechanism to harness that energy for useful cell building work.–
No, energy from the sun is quite potent, able to make radicals, superoxides, amino acids, and what-not. Of course evolution is needed in addition to produce an oak tree and acorns, but that doesn’t mean that the sun is impotent sans energy conversion mechanisms.
–Today that role is primarily filled by the process of photosynthesis.–
And on Mars high-energy molecules are made without photosynthesis. Possibly providing energy to organisms which evolved there.
–In the early earth, if we are going to go from raw chemicals, water and solar energy to even a simplified first cell, there is a desperate need for some kind of energy conversion mechanism.–
Why? Don’t you know that the first organisms are considered likely to have been extreme heterotrophs? Just as high-energy ozone is made in the upper atmosphere, high-energy organic molecules could be made by sunlight under the proper conditions.
–Applying raw undirected energy to a system of chemicals is almost always going to be destructive not constructive.–
No, chemicals are zapped by various forms of energy to make high-energy and complex molecules. Buckeyballs and carbon nanotubes form when electrical discharges are run through various chemicals. Lightning produces ozone and nitrogen oxides. The Miller-Urey experiments produced amino acids via electrical discharges. Carbonaceous chondrites have fairly complex organic molecules in them including amino acids, which is certainly a step up from the monotomic atoms coming out of supernovae explosions.
Self-organizing processes are very well known in chemistry and elsewhere.
–Requiring some kind of energy conversion mechanism apart from cellular machinery before there were cells seems to require some kind of intelligent input.–
This is why I didn’t respond to this “substantive” stuff before. It’s all sheer creationism/ID, without any knowledge of what is proposed for abiogenesis, nor with any of the understanding of how early “life” might have incorporated and used compounds for reproduction. Indeed, replication itself would be the only real “metabolic” function in most scenarios, and that could be provided by various environmental means, like pH changes.
–Something has to manipulate the molecules.–
Only in your assumptions. Real science involves trying to learn how molecules might self-organize, which does happen in many situations.
–And what about the first cellular information blueprint? All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence.–
Our experience is that functional information in animals has evolved over the course of evolution. We do not know how genetic material arose to the level of life in the first place, but if we’re not willing to conclude that it was just magic, we work at the problem scientifically, not merely resorting to the unevidenced.
Most importantly, the sort of information found in DNA has never been observed to come from intelligence, ever. Your claim that “All of our experience tells us that useful, complex, specified information arises from intelligence” is related to the idea that we have only seen wolves and lions coming from intelligence, when in fact we have only seen them coming from reproduction. But even though we HAVE only seen them come from reproduction, and even though we have evidence that lions and wolves share ancestry, you would prefer to believe that an unknown agent was responsible for there being wolves and lions.
Should we believe the evidence of common ancestry among humans? Among mammals? Among vertebrates? Among all of life? What is most absurd about ID is that it believes that the “probabilities are too high for ‘Darwinism’ to account for evolution,” when apparently the 95%+ relatedness of chimps and humans is either accidental or due to some unfathomable reasons of the creator. We know that probabilities could never produce anything like the apparent relatedness and non-teleological evolution of all life, and of course claiming that design caused the expected patterns of “Darwinism” is the most ad hoc and lame claim that I can think of.
–Packaged energy for cellular processes and genetic information scream for an intelligent precursor.–
Non sequitur. And you completely ignored what is actually proposed for abiogenesis, which are also understood only as a sets of hypotheses at this time (IOW, it is not evolutionary theory).
–Compounding the equation is the apparent necessity for this to be a rapid process since fossilized remnants of bacterial life have been dated at around 3.6 or 3.7 billion years old, only a 100 million years or so after the earth had cooled sufficiently to allow life to survive and the major meteoric bombardment had let up.–
Compounding the equation is the fact that you have put in a bunch of assumptions which are not obviously important to abiogenesis.
–You can find the full thermodynamic equations in Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen’s book, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin.” It’s critique of chemical evolution scenarios remains valid.–
And I’m supposed to believe that claim, when none of your assumptions are shared with those scientists who work on abiogenesis?
–If you’re going to rely purely on chemical and geological forces to account for the origin of life, you just can’t get there from here.–
First off, I can’t see that anyone was arguing over abiogenesis. Perhaps some were, but that’s not what this blog is about. Secondly, none of your points have anything to do with the real work being done to try to explain life’s origins.
–I look forward to the movie and am disappointed but not terribly surprised at the ad hominem attacks and negative judgement displayed here about a film no one has even seen yet.–
Still a very unfair statement, considering that almost none of the remarks have disparaged the movie except insofar as it has been characterized by Stein and others involved in the movie. You seem to fault us merely for answering Ben’s claims, and without properly characterizing our answers.
Back to the last part of his more recent post:
–I have been making this observation for many years. Perhaps Glen D can enlighten me as to why he would characterize my comments this way. I welcome any response.–
I characterized it that way because you made an unfair attack on those of us who were not faulting the movie so much as the material that has been released about the movie, and because such untruthful attacks amount to ad hominem attacks. Then I didn’t want to get into abiogenesis, since that’s largely beside the point that evolution is a solid established scientific theory the equal of other scientific theories.
And also I had noted how many times pro-IDists’ “science” claims have been answered because it is true, and because I dealt with Granville Sewell’s attacks on evolution (invoking entropy) here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/6978876a72594eca/1144557a0e35a31a?q=glend+sewell&rnum=1#1144557a0e35a31a
You have to click on “Read more” to get the full comments.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
“Keep in mind, his worked has never been refuted to this day. Just simply ignored.”
Not true in this case. There are numerous counter-papers, including those by Hashemi-Nezhad et al, Ellenberger, Osmon, Odom, Schnier, and Wakefield.
Baillieul’s treatment is a more accessible summary of some of the above for a layman, taking Gentry to task for such things as ignoring radon as the polonium source and, in other parts of Gentry’s paper, for presuming that lead would diffuse out of zircons ‘ideally’ when zircons are a strong crystal lattice.
Gentry’s background is in nuclear physics, not geology, and it shows in a few key spots, in particular his identification of granites as ‘primordial’ and his indirect collection of the samples.
There’s also a difference between his research and its reliance on unchanging decay rates and other creationist research which requires significantly changing decay rates.
He and DeYoung have also been taken to task for their conclusions by some old-earth creationists.
You can see Gentry’s original paper and updated paper on his site here to compare it to the critiques.
Now he still claims to remain unrefuted, but this is not a well-supported claim. Why he figures at this point he can demand geologists to further pay rapt attention to him is a mystery, given his hyperbolic behavior of late and odd things like his misfiled lawsuit against arXiv (which Arp and the like are well-represented in). Lorence Collins’ brushes with Gentry and his supporters are instructive of the state of this kind of young-earth research at the moment.
They could still pop out with something, but they need a lot more to go on than what they have produced so far.
September 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Marilyn,
Your ignorance of evolution or scientific theories is not surprising.
“And an article here which states the horse evolution to be false:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution.html”
From the article
MacFadden, the study author, agrees that horse evolution was, in fact, a pretty messy affair—a jumble of evolutionary processes such as random genetic variation and natural selection.
In other wards, It’s still EVOLUTION!
September 13th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Dimensio said:
“Common creationist misrepresentation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html”
Obviously you would retreat to talkorigins website as predicted; like a good little evolutionist, who realizes that their most fervently held beliefs are being challenged. Unfortunately, you are highly indoctrinated into the religion of naturalism, and thus no amount of evidence contradicting evolution will ever be considered viable (at least not to the point of leading to disbelief). Please have a little integrity and at least research for yourself before copying and pasting from anti-creationist websites. Here are quite a few links establishing the fact that you obviously desire to remain willingly ignorant about such things:
Dinosaur soft tissue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html?ex=1269406800&en=b273d4463ac5bade&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html
Mummified dinosaurs
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rare+fossil+reveals+common+dinosaur’s+soft+tissue.+(Dear+Mummy)-a094129219
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur2.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur3.htm
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/personnel/departed/Signore/Scipio.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/pelecanimimus.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/1015143.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS0200_dinosaurMummy.asp
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561446286.html
Various dinosaur soft parts:
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/manning.html
http://naturalsciences.org/dinoheart/fastfacts/index.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/11/21/dinofind_din.html?category=dinosaurs
“Which, I notice, that you do not substantiate in any way.”
As for radiometric dating, there are three major variables that evolutionists MUST absolutely know (which is impossible) in order to correctly calibrate their measurements; otherwise these factors must be assumed, which is in actuality the case. These assumptions include:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
I do not need to substantiate the fact that accurate dating results are contingent on an a priori knowledge of these three points. In fact, considering that dating results are subsequently off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years for objects of KNOWN age (within the past 2000 years or so), evolutionists are the ones who need to substantiate the validity of radiometric dating, as this has not yet been accomplished.
But of course, it is much easier for you to ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs and to put all your faith in faulty dating methods and virulently biased websites hosted by naturalistic ideologues, than to accept ultimate truths that upset your materialistic worldview.
“False dilemma. Even discovering that all current dating methods used to establish the currently accepted age of the earth would not, in any way, demonstrate that the earth’s age correspond’s to anyone’s calculations derived from a religious text. You cannot prove the Biblical creation account by merely disproving existing accepted scientific claims regarding earth and life origins”
This is not a false dilemma for me. I understand the logical consequences of assuming a universe full of design without a designer, whereas you do not. You ignore common sense applications of observation that infer the necessity of a creator for a highly complex and highly ordered reality. You do this because you abhor the idea of an ultimate authority that you are to be held accountable to, which makes it sublimely simple for you to swallow the mendacious pill of evolution, no matter how many facts are stacked up against it. In this case, you believe in fallacious dating methods that cannot determine correct measurements for objects of known age, and are built on crucial assumptions that cannot be verified by any means. Because of this, you disavow the authenticity and authority of a historical document that has been corroborated archeologically time and time again, simply because this account of origins does not align with your own presupposed worldview. Ironically, evolutionists do not have a problem conceding any single recorded historical event in the Bible, except for the ones that directly contradict their belief in naturalism (i.e. creation ex nihilo, a worldwide flood, etc.).
I might reciprocate that you cannot prove evolution by simply disproving creation, but the basis for that idea is a logical fallacy because the event of creation is ultimately inseparable from the creation itself (which we observe). I would say that because creation is both necessary and apparent, that evolution is indeed irrelevant, however.
Craig said:
“This is not true at all. The assumptions behind radiometric dating are not unverifiable. Quite the opposite in fact.”
Please read my above reply to Dimensio to see the assumptions to which I refer. Also, by your own admission there are assumptions behind radiometric dating, as you just stated. Furthermore, assumptions in general are called as such precisely because they cannot be (or have not been) verified. Therefore, what you are implying is that the core assumptions that I listed above HAVE been verified; which ultimately requires a direct observation of the formation of the objects in question, as well as continuous observation from that time until the present. The implications of knowing such things are that of omniscience and omnipresence; both of which are characteristics of God alone.
To all:
On a side note, it is rather telling when evolutionists consistently regurgitate the old chestnut “that argument/creationist has been debunked so many times.” This is an argument of the lowest form, in that it requires absolutely no intelligent thought, and absolutely no research. For example, if someone wrote an article claiming that CRasch is an empty-headed no-nothing because he cannot spell correctly and simply copies other peoples’ work, and then I proceeded to tell CRasch that his posts are irrelevant because his intelligence has already been debunked, then that is not a logical argument. More specifically, it would be an ad hominem attack, only broader in scope, so as to encompass all creationists, and there also their work. Just because some acrimonious apostle of the church of Darwinism representing talkorigins et al spins some flippant mischaracterization of creationists’ theories or views, does not mean that the argument has been debunked, any more than CRasch’s intelligence has been. Please refrain from using this fallacious, non-argument, or you will only be derided as a blathering, doltish Darwin-puppet. Thank you.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Glen Davidson,
Thanks for being such a lively participant on this blog. However, I’m afraid your enthusiasm may have gotten in the way of a few facts.
Case in point: When you quoted me in comment 1090, you did so out of context. What I wrote was not meant as an apology for ID but an explanation of why ID is friendlier to theism than classical Darwinism. What I said was, ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer, whereas the best that Darwinism allows is some sort of non-involved deity or a deity that interacts with the world in a way we cannot measure. Hardly a satisfying situation for your average theist. Even so, it is not so much a criticism of Darwinism as a mere a statement of fact, and I don’t see how it can be construed as an endorsement of ID. If you read my entire conversation with Peter Chattaway, you will see that it was merely meant as a point of clarification.
I can accept the above mistake as a potential oversight on your part. However, my real bone of contention is when you say, “What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge ‘Designer’, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for ‘potential signs of intelligence in nature’.”
I meant nothing of the sort, Glen, and I suspect you know that to be true. At best, your interpretation of my post is just plain wrong. At worst, it is a wilful distortion of the facts. Perhaps it will help if I clarify things a little: To disqualify ID merely because it starts from a particular philosophical position is ridiculous. Who doesn’t do science from a philosophical position? That’s all science is: conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation—a constellation of unprovable assumptions. If you don’t believe me, just look at someone like Richard Dawkins. While he claims his atheism is inferred from the evidence—which it may have been at one point—his scientific writings are clearly meant as an apologetic for his atheistic point of view. His atheism doesn’t flow from his science; his science flows from his atheism. So if you want to disqualify anyone for mixing their philosophical presuppositions with their science, Dawkins is your man. You may not like ID’s philosophical starting point, just as many others may not like Richard Dawkins’s starting point. But if so, that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. If you’re going to reject ID—or Richard Dawkins—you need to do so on the basis of their science.
Which brings me back to my post: Contrary to your interpretation, I am not arguing that ID should be classified as science because it begins with the assumption that God is at the heart of nature. I’m merely arguing that ID should not be disqualified on this basis. As I understand it, the core scientific program of ID seeks to explain how information moves in and out of biological systems. That’s it. All of the religious baggage that gets tagged onto the movement is essentially a red herring perpetuated by their opponents. Darwinian evolutionists think they’ve already solved the information problem by proposing purely natural information-producing mechanisms, such as random mutations and natural selection. But the ID proponents are skeptical that such mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life. In their search for a more satisfying hypothesis, they are willing to consider all possible explanations—including some form of superior intelligence. I fail to see how that makes them unscientific. In fact, I think it displays an open-mindedness that seems sorely lacking on the part of their purely Darwinian counterparts—including, if I may say so, Mr. Glen A. Davidson.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ken (1260) said he has a degree in geology and has never taken a course in evolution. The reason he gives for never taking a course in evolution is “because it is essential to the understanding of geology.” Does his reasoning make sense to anybody?
For 35 years I taught psychology at the local technical college. After ten years of teaching, I took a one semester sabbatical leave. AT that time I was and still am a creationist. While on leave I took three courses at the University of Wisconsin. One of them was called “Organic Evolution” and the professor was the late John T. Robinson, who in his younger days discovered several Australopithecus fossils.
As for Darwin himself, his only degree was in divinity.
Degrees, education, and even “evidence” has little to do with why a person is an evolutionist or a creationist.
Robinson, at my request, debated creationist Duane Gish on the UW campus. 3,300 people attended. When I asked Robinson, he said he saw no purpose in a debate. He said it’s more an issue about what’s in here, as he pointed to his own heart. I said tell that to the people … and he did.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Marilyn said: “1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t.”
But you do. Hyracotherium lived about 54 million years ago.
“In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils!”
Yes, because when a species splits into two species, the original species doesn’t necessarily die out instantaneously. Hyracotherium lasted for about 16 million years after Orohippus split off.
“Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?”
Not really, no.
“2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress”
You wouldn’t expect them to be found in the same place because they would have evolved to fit into changing environments.
“3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression?”
I’m not sure why you think this is a problem. Some humans today have an extra pair of ribs than most people.
“4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.”
The difference is, these size difference are the result of selective breeding. The size variation among the natural horse subspecies is much less.
“And an article here which states the horse evolution to be false:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution.html”
Um, did you actually read this article? Because it by no means says horses didn’t evolve, just that it was a lot bumpier than we thought.
September 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Sweet, I can’t wait to see the movie. Science is unbiased, however all scientists are biased because they are human. Whether it is bias for evolution or for creation, they all have a starting point in their beliefs. Evidence does not speak for itself, it is interpreted.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
(Note: Arp is represented in arXiv, not the lawsuit
Some things go better on a second reading)
September 14th, 2007 at 6:24 am
In message 1255, DaveScot has responded to my terms for admission to Uncommon Descent. I told him I was not interested in hearng from the biggest bully in cyberdom, but would consider readmission if I were to be invited by William Dembski, the titular head of Uncommon Descent. I will give Dembski one more chance to respond to what I feel are reasonable conditions for allowing ANYONE to participate in his forum. If he chooses to ignore my request it will only indicate to me that like Pharyngula, EvC, ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Panda’s Thumb, Uncommon Descent also fears my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and its implications for an understanding of the great mystery of organic evolution.
One bit of advice for Dembski. When a published scientist asks to participate in a forum dedicated to Intelligent Design, and when all his publications provide tangible support for that perspective, don’t send out your personally appointed blogczar to offer shabby terms to a published scientist. Show the world what kind of a man you are either by responding directly as I have requested or, as you have done in the past, by continuing to pretend that I do not exist. The choice is yours and yours alone. In the meantime -
“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 14th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Can you imnagine David Springer demanding a public apology from me for the contents of a private email which no one else has ever seen or ever will see? Such a demonstration of egomaniacal, irrational arrogance boggles my mind.
He also pontificates that I am not in a position to make terms either. Well that is exactly what I have done as my messages here make perfectly clear.
And what is this crap about “biting the hand that feeds me?” Is that David Springer’s hand who has twice banned me and twice removed my papers from the side bar, both times in frightful fits of pique! Or is it Dembski’s hand that lets me hold forth on “brainstorms,” a forum he initiated?
Now Springer attempts to lure me back for more abuse by reinstating my papers once again. Such hypocricy defies ones imagination.
I will deal with Dembski or with no one. Got that Springer? Write that down! If Dembski continues, as he aways has, to ignore me, he will prove to be just one more insecure enemy of the truth. That is fine with me too. The more the merrier!
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!”
Gregor Mendel
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 14th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Contrary to what Springer maintains, I see no evidence that my papers have been restored on the Uncommon Descent side board.
It doesn’t get any better than this!
September 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Dave wrote:
Alan Fox, I don’t visit your blog because the readership is so tiny it would be a pointless endeavour.
Quite so. I hardly visit myself since he demise of ID as a viable political vehicle. It does remain as an archive of those happy days when you did pop in; mushroom cultivation, violation of 2lot by typing, gravity the strongest force in the universe.
Dave wrote:
JAD, please not(sic) your papers are prominently displayed in the side bar at the new “Uncommon Descent”.
Who needs who most, I wonder?
Dave wrote:
Now how about that apology?
Go on John, call his bluff.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
America The Beautiful!
Majority rules, Minority rights.
Brotherhood, Patriotism.
Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Religion.
These are some of our very deep and essential tensions.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
MEDIA COVERAGE: Baylor, Robert Marks, and the Evolutionary Informatics Lab
September 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I observe: “Intelligent Design” fails to meet standard scientific criteria by not generating any predictions by which it could be disproved; this is a fundamental aspect of any legitimate field of science. There is always some observation or evidence which could prove it wrong.
Oddly enough, have you ever heard a creationist / ID proponent admit “If I observed ______, it would change my mind.”?
Woo, kook, flim-flam, circular reasoning, and plenty of gullible people with cash on hand are the foundations of this mockery of human intellect.
Mr. Stein had entertained me in the past, and I’ve got a bowl of popcorn on hand to watch this miserable failure come to fruition. Entertain on, Mr. Stein.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
If I haven’t heard from Dembski within 24 hours, I will assume that I never will. That does not mean that he will not hear from me!
“You ain’t heard nothin’ yet.”
Al Jolson
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 14th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
It’s amusing. It’s so obvious. It’s encouraging. What? The fact that the majority of posters to this blog are proving the reality of the premise of the film. Those comments are among them degrading, insulting, disparaging of Ben’s character and intelligence, arrogant and excessive in their assumptions and assertions, disavowing admiration–and this based on a very small peek at a film that seeks to question a climate that suppresses free inquiry and expression.
No longer can we say, “Let us reason together.” Postmodernism has so obscured and trampled on truth, logic and reason that many no longer know how to inquire, or do it fairly. Oddly, inquiry as a requirement to find the truth is rather moot when no standard or truth is considered supreme. If yours is equal to mine is equal to his, what does it matter? The claim is that truth is relative and that any “truth” is verified by its personal meaning. What’s inexplicable is that humanistic scientific “believers” claim their view of the world and reality is “the truth” and that opposing views cannot possibly be true. Yet they find others guilty of doing just that, while failing to look in the mirror. It’s so transparently deceitful and dishonorable.
The foundational assumption of evolutionary theory and of its underpinning philosophical framework–humanism–is that God doesn’t exist and thus didn’t create. It’s undeniably as much a philosophical system, as a scientific system. How is it any different than a Christian making sense of the world from his philosophical frame of reference? The Supreme Court declared humanism a religion, when it sought to be recognized as a system of beliefs upon which its worldview emanates. Ever since its been trying to disassociate itself from that ruling as it seeks to dismantle the opposing system of beliefs.
Even though Darwin himself said that if the transitional fossils were not found the theory could not stand (and not a one has yet to be found), evolutionary theory has been elevated to fact and the case is deemed closed. Little toleration exists for non-compliance, especially in circles where Darwinism is institutionalized. Fact is, to even assist in publishing scholarly articles that invite inquiry brings derision and censure. Read about the experience of Dr. Richard Sternberg (www.rsternberg.net/).
There is much about evolutionary theory that is based on assumptions, unproven. And much that it cannot explain or hasn’t adequately explained. Those problems are often dismissed or credited to aliens or a new absurd hypothesis is offered to fill the vacuum they create. “Facts” offered to support evolution later revealed to be lies still circulate in textbooks and literature. Darwinism has as checkered a history as any human endeavor, yet its proponents take the high ground and continue to accuse others of duplicity.
Assertions that there is little to support creationism, or even intelligent design, are dishonest or uninformed. Many serious scientists, even those who don’t believe in God, are finding evolutionary theory lacking in light of new scientific revelations. Yet, intelligent design is still disallowed as a possibility because it doesn’t fit into the philosophical assumptions of evolutionary science. Taken together, there are enough questions to recommend real inquiry, unless of course, one rejects fair scientific inquiry and exploration.
In a land where men and women are guaranteed protection of free expression, it is true that many are hated and unfairly treated for expressing and holding to opinions that are contrary to humanistic ideology. Some would claim that it is the Right that “hates,” but in my reading of blogs around the net, it is those who doubt or reject the reality of a transcendent intelligent Creator God–especially the biblical view of him–who most consistently react emotionally and fail to exercise restraint.
With the plethora of absurd and worthless movies that fill our theater screens, you’d think Mr. Stein could have a little fun and make a statement of his own. Perhaps detractors could take the advice of the Left and just “change the channel” or otherwise exercise tolerance while the rest of us enjoy the creative license of Mr. Stein. You think?
September 15th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Wouldn’t it be a little more objective to see the movie before reviewing it?
I can’t believe this dog and pony show, especially Glen Davidson and Alan Fox from “After The Bar Closes,” Wesley Elsberry’s “inner sanctum, “our forum.” the most degenerate, irrational flame pit in cyberspace, even worse than P.Z. Myers’ “Pharyngula” where its sponsor introduces himself as a “godless liberal” offering “random biologial ejaculations.” I thought all ejaculations were biological but random too?
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Daviosn
September 15th, 2007 at 1:19 am
biological not biologial. Sorry about that.
September 15th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Liz Craig, who has served as president, media consultant, etc. for Kansas Citizens For Science, posted the following remark on their website prior the Kansas Science Standards hearings by the Kansas Board of Education two years ago.
“My strategy at this point is the same as it was in that 1999. Notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them (the I.D. proponents) “in the harshest light possible as political opportunists, as evangelical activists, as ignoramuses, as breakers of rules, as unprincipled bullies. “There may be no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses as they do what
they do. Our target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues.”
So Darwinists want to portray Ph.D Scientists as ignoramuses, and they want to target uneducated people in order to get their agenda through and brainwash high school students.
That pretty much sums up the sorry, pitiful, arguments that the Darwinian Evolutionist have put forth here. As Liz Craig stated, “we can sure make them look like asses.”
September 15th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Truthlover,
Did you read what Ben Stein wrote in his blog? Many here are not responding to the movie but instead to what is written in his blog.
Ben Stein wrote some major falsehoods in his blog. He has been called out on these falsehoods and has refused to address them.
As someone who calls himself “truthlover”, you should be ashamed of what he wrote!
Ben Stein’s inability to respond to the criticisms and mentioned falsehoods of his blog only shows that this blog and movie is about propaganda and not about truth.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I am truly embarrassed at what the evanpoliticals are undertaking allegedly on my behalf. For an insightful and non-ranting discussion of “intelligent design,” I recommend the video of Ken Millers presentation in Ohio available on YouTube — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
-Him
September 15th, 2007 at 9:34 am
John, enjoy your irrelevance. Bill’s a bit to busy dealing with Baylor at the moment to deal with your posturing and I’m administering Uncommon Descent these days. I can publish *that* email HERE if that’s what you want, John? Let everyone see how bitter you’ve become since being spurned by the academic community?
Pathetic, Davison.
I think we’ll stick with REAL scientists like Dembski and Sal Cordova.
How’d you like THEM apples?
Alan Fox: ID is alive, well and growing, despite Sternbergers like you trying to stop the inevitable.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:46 am
John wrote:
If I haven’t heard from Dembski within 24 hours, I will assume that I never will. That does not mean that he will not hear from me!
Go get him, Tiger…
September 15th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
“Why are you people so angry?”
Why do you conflate exposure of dishonesty with anger?
“What are you afraid of?”
I fear a generation of schoolchildren being taught a corrupted form of science, rather than actual science, leading to a decline in the quality of education in the United States.
“You can’t prove evolution scientificallly”
Nothing in science is ever proven. Your statement is meaningless.
“any more than you can prove there is a God scientifically.”
To which “God”, out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you reference that specific deity to the exclusion of all others?
“Every experiment that is run has INTELLIGENT intervention, which seems to me - proves intelligent design.”
Then you do not grasp logical reasoning. That humans intelligently set up experiments for observation is not even evidence that an intelligent “designer” of unspecified origin and nature sets up any events not demonstratably set up by humans. It is certainly not proof.
“I’m not a genius though, maybe that’s my problem.”
The problem is that you have employed non-sequitur reasoning.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Ben Stein
I hope ypu notice that none of the leaders of the more prominent forums appear here. Instead they send forth their hired goons like Alan Fox, Glen Davidson and DaveScot/David Springer to cast aspersions on anyone that might take exception with what they hold most dear, whether that be Protestant Fundamentalism or Dawkinsian hyperatheism. Ideologues are the same wherever they surface, insecure congenital defectives, cowering in their intellectual ghettos, surrounded by hundreds of like minded adoring, drooling, toadies. I wouldn’t give you a nickel for the whole damn lot of them and neither would any of my sources if they were to see what has happened to rational discourse lately. Western civilization is in a state of profound decay and nowhere is that more evident than on internet blogs like this one where every unfulfilled sociopath, typically anonymous, is free to vent his personal spleen with gay abandon.
I am confident you agree that it is disgusting. Good luck and if you ever need any help, don’t hesitate to let me know. I charge nothing for my services. I love my work too much.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“Obviously you would retreat to talkorigins website as predicted; like a good little evolutionist, who realizes that their most fervently held beliefs are being challenged.”
And, in typical anti-science bigot fashion, you attack the source of the information, without at all addressing the information itself. It’s much easier for you to ignore a rebuttal with a lame excuse than to acknowledge and counter it.
“Unfortunately, you are highly indoctrinated into the religion of naturalism,”
Poisoning the well, again…
“and thus no amount of evidence contradicting evolution will ever be considered viable (at least not to the point of leading to disbelief).”
And more poison. Much easier to attack as an excuse to avoid addressing rebuttals, isn’t it?
“Please have a little integrity and at least research for yourself before copying and pasting from anti-creationist websites.”
How do you know that I haven’t done any research? Because I’ve come to conclusions that aren’t supported by anti-evolution websites?
“Here are quite a few links establishing the fact that you obviously desire to remain willingly ignorant about such things:
Dinosaur soft tissue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html?ex=1269406800&en=b273d4463ac5bade&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html”
And this is addressed at the talkorigins site. But you’d rather attack talkorigins than even acknowledge that the “soft tissue” claims of creationists have been rebutted.
Posting more links to lay publications on the same subject will not make the rebuttals go away. Your continued willful ignorance of the rebuttals do not make them go away. You cannot counter a rebuttal by attacking the website on which the rebutall is hosted.
“Mummified dinosaurs
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rare+fossil+reveals+common+dinosaur’s+soft+tissue.+(Dear+Mummy)-a094129219
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur2.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur3.htm
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/personnel/departed/Signore/Scipio.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/pelecanimimus.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/1015143.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS0200_dinosaurMummy.asp
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561446286.html”
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to demonstrate here. Mummification is a known means of preserving tissue for extended periods of time. How, exactly, does this falsify evolution?
“Various dinosaur soft parts:
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/manning.html”
Did you not even *read* this link? The means by which soft tissues can be preserved over an extended period of time is *addressed* there. Your references are undermining your own conclusions.
As for radiometric dating, there are three major variables that evolutionists MUST absolutely know (which is impossible) in order to correctly calibrate their measurements; otherwise these factors must be assumed, which is in actuality the case. These assumptions include:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).”
Cutting and pasting from anti-evolution websites, are you?
Didn’t you attack me for “cutting and pasting from anti-creationism websites” (when, in fact, talkorigins is a pro-science site). Isn’t there a word for berating someone for an action that you do yourself?
Of course, the daughter isotope assumption claim is false: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isodaughter
I expect, now, that you will attack me for referencing talkorigins instead of actually addressing the rebuttal offered there. It’s easier to claim that you are correct when you dismiss counter claims without even looking at them.
“2. Decay rates have always been constant.”
You are aware, are you not, that a change in decay rates would have a rather significant impact on the laws of physics themselves?
Do you have evidence that decay rates are not constant? Do you even understand why this “assumption” of constant decay rates exists?
It’s a derivation of evidevce: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
But, wait, you don’t want to have information. You want to be allowed to make unsubstantiated assertions, so you find a dishonest cop-out as a means of ignoring any information that shows your claims to be wrong.
“3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.”
Actually, that’s addressed in my previous link (which I am certain that you will not even read).
“I do not need to substantiate the fact that accurate dating results are contingent on an a priori knowledge of these three points.”
Of course not, because you can answer the challenge with demonstratably false claims, then you can use a lame excuse and state that you won’t even look at a website with evidence that challenges your claims.
“In fact, considering that dating results are subsequently off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years for objects of KNOWN age (within the past 2000 years or so),”
Evidence?
” evolutionists are the ones who need to substantiate the validity of radiometric dating, as this has not yet been accomplished. ”
Sure, as soon as you can substantiate your above claim.
“But of course, it is much easier for you to ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs and to put all your faith in faulty dating methods and virulently biased websites hosted by naturalistic ideologues, than to accept ultimate truths that upset your materialistic worldview.”
Poisoning the well once more. Have you no shame?
Wait, you’re a creationist. No, you don’t.
“This is not a false dilemma for me.”
Then you lack fundamental reasoning skills. Showing that the currently estimated age of the earth has been derived from incorrect dating methods would not show that the earth is an age derived from Biblical inferences. If you cannot understand that, then you are wholly irrational. There really is no other way to put it.
The only conclusion that could be inferred from showing that current dating methods used to establish the age of the earth are wrong is that the currently estimated age of the earth cannot be considered reliable. It could mean that the earth is much younger, but it wouldn’t tell you how much younger. It could also mean that the earth is much older, and it could even mean that the currently estimated age is the correct age, but it is only correct through sheer luck and not because of the accuracy of the methods.
Your claim that showing inconsistencies in dating methods demonstrates the accuracy of Biblical claims is flat-out wrong. Either you are completely dishonest for making the claim or your have no sense of logic.
“I understand the logical consequences of assuming a universe full of design without a designer, whereas you do not.”
Non-sequitur. Showing that existing dating methods are off does not show “design”. You have yet to demonstrate design.0
“You ignore common sense applications of observation that infer the necessity of a creator for a highly complex and highly ordered reality.”
You have yet to demonstrate this necessity. Asserting a necessity is not the same as demonstrating such.
“You do this because you abhor the idea of an ultimate authority that you are to be held accountable to, which makes it sublimely simple for you to swallow the mendacious pill of evolution, no matter how many facts are stacked up against it.”
Nice strawman. Nice well-poisoning. Nice unfounded assertions about me. Nice way of insulting all who accept evolution without providing a shred of evidence to support your assertions. Nice complete dishonest ignoring of the fact that many — if not most — who accept evolution ARE NOT ATHEISTS.
Ken Miller and Francis Collins alone are sufficient to show that your claims are utter lies.
Really, why should anyone take you seriously when your claims are so transparently dishonest?
“In this case, you believe in fallacious dating methods that cannot determine correct measurements for objects of known age, and are built on crucial assumptions that cannot be verified by any means.”
You have yet to show actual fallacy in the dating methods.
“Because of this, you disavow the authenticity and authority of a historical document that has been corroborated archeologically time and time again, simply because this account of origins does not align with your own presupposed worldview.”
Whoa, please provide documentation of this accuracy. Merely asserting it is not evidence.
“Ironically, evolutionists do not have a problem conceding any single recorded historical event in the Bible, except for the ones that directly contradict their belief in naturalism (i.e. creation ex nihilo, a worldwide flood, etc.).”
Well, there’s also the problem of there being absolutely no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. Hell, that one was being tossed out even before Darwin’s time.
“I might reciprocate that you cannot prove evolution”
Nothing in science is ever proven.
“by simply disproving creation,”
I have never claimed that disproving Biblical creationism would prove evolution, you shameless liar.
“but the basis for that idea is a logical fallacy because the event of creation is ultimately inseparable from the creation itself (which we observe).”
You have yet to demonstrate that what “we observe” is actually a “creation”. Even when you do this, you do not demonstrate that the Biblical creation account is the correct account for this creation. Why not another religion’s creation account? Why not a creation account that no human has yet considered?
“I would say that because creation is both necessary and apparent, that evolution is indeed irrelevant, however.”
Well, you can say that, but it doesn’t make your assertion that creation is “necessary and apparent” true.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“Obviously you would retreat to talkorigins website as predicted; like a good little evolutionist, who realizes that their most fervently held beliefs are being challenged.”
Brilliant way to dishonestly dismiss a rebuttal without at all addressing the information itself. It’s much easier for you to ignore a rebuttal with a lame excuse than to acknowledge and counter it.
“Unfortunately, you are highly indoctrinated into the religion of naturalism,”
Poisoning the well, again…
“and thus no amount of evidence contradicting evolution will ever be considered viable (at least not to the point of leading to disbelief).”
And more poison. Much easier to attack as an excuse to avoid addressing rebuttals, isn’t it?
“Please have a little integrity and at least research for yourself before copying and pasting from anti-creationist websites.”
How do you know that I haven’t done any research? Because I’ve come to conclusions that aren’t supported by anti-evolution websites?
“Here are quite a few links establishing the fact that you obviously desire to remain willingly ignorant about such things:
Dinosaur soft tissue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html?ex=1269406800&en=b273d4463ac5bade&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html”
And this is addressed at the talkorigins site. But you’d rather attack talkorigins than even acknowledge that the “soft tissue” claims of creationists have been rebutted.
Posting more links to lay publications on the same subject will not make the rebuttals go away. Your continued willful ignorance of the rebuttals do not make them go away. You cannot counter a rebuttal by attacking the website on which the rebutall is hosted.
“Mummified dinosaurs
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rare+fossil+reveals+common+dinosaur’s+soft+tissue.+(Dear+Mummy)-a094129219
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur2.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur3.htm
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/personnel/departed/Signore/Scipio.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/pelecanimimus.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/1015143.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS0200_dinosaurMummy.asp
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561446286.html”
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to demonstrate here. Mummification is a known means of preserving tissue for extended periods of time. How, exactly, does this falsify evolution?
“Various dinosaur soft parts:
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/manning.html”
Did you not even *read* this link? The means by which soft tissues can be preserved over an extended period of time is *addressed* there. Your references are undermining your own conclusions.
As for radiometric dating, there are three major variables that evolutionists MUST absolutely know (which is impossible) in order to correctly calibrate their measurements; otherwise these factors must be assumed, which is in actuality the case. These assumptions include:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).”
Cutting and pasting from anti-evolution websites, are you?
Didn’t you attack me for “cutting and pasting from anti-creationism websites” (when, in fact, talkorigins is a pro-science site). Isn’t there a word for berating someone for an action that you do yourself?
Of course, the daughter isotope assumption claim is false: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isodaughter
I expect, now, that you will attack me for referencing talkorigins instead of actually addressing the rebuttal offered there. It’s easier to claim that you are correct when you dismiss counter claims without even looking at them.
“2. Decay rates have always been constant.”
You are aware, are you not, that a change in decay rates would have a rather significant impact on the laws of physics themselves?
Do you have evidence that decay rates are not constant? Do you even understand why this “assumption” of constant decay rates exists?
It’s a derivation of evidevce: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html
But, wait, you don’t want to have information. You want to be allowed to make unsubstantiated assertions, so you find a dishonest cop-out as a means of ignoring any information that shows your claims to be wrong.
“3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.”
Actually, that’s addressed in my previous link (which I am certain that you will not even read).
“I do not need to substantiate the fact that accurate dating results are contingent on an a priori knowledge of these three points.”
Of course not, because you can answer the challenge with demonstratably false claims, then you can use a lame excuse and state that you won’t even look at a website with evidence that challenges your claims.
“In fact, considering that dating results are subsequently off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years for objects of KNOWN age (within the past 2000 years or so),”
Evidence?
” evolutionists are the ones who need to substantiate the validity of radiometric dating, as this has not yet been accomplished. ”
Sure, as soon as you can substantiate your above claim.
“But of course, it is much easier for you to ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs and to put all your faith in faulty dating methods and virulently biased websites hosted by naturalistic ideologues, than to accept ultimate truths that upset your materialistic worldview.”
Poisoning the well once more. Have you no shame?
Wait, you’re a creationist. No, you don’t.
“This is not a false dilemma for me.”
Then you lack fundamental reasoning skills. Showing that the currently estimated age of the earth has been derived from incorrect dating methods would not show that the earth is an age derived from Biblical inferences. If you cannot understand that, then you are wholly irrational. There really is no other way to put it.
The only conclusion that could be inferred from showing that current dating methods used to establish the age of the earth are wrong is that the currently estimated age of the earth cannot be considered reliable. It could mean that the earth is much younger, but it wouldn’t tell you how much younger. It could also mean that the earth is much older, and it could even mean that the currently estimated age is the correct age, but it is only correct through sheer luck and not because of the accuracy of the methods.
Your claim that showing inconsistencies in dating methods demonstrates the accuracy of Biblical claims is flat-out wrong. Either you are completely dishonest for making the claim or your have no sense of logic.
“I understand the logical consequences of assuming a universe full of design without a designer, whereas you do not.”
Non-sequitur. Showing that existing dating methods are off does not show “design”. You have yet to demonstrate design.0
“You ignore common sense applications of observation that infer the necessity of a creator for a highly complex and highly ordered reality.”
You have yet to demonstrate this necessity. Asserting a necessity is not the same as demonstrating such.
“You do this because you abhor the idea of an ultimate authority that you are to be held accountable to, which makes it sublimely simple for you to swallow the mendacious pill of evolution, no matter how many facts are stacked up against it.”
Nice strawman. Nice well-poisoning. Nice unfounded assertions about me. Nice way of insulting all who accept evolution without providing a shred of evidence to support your assertions. Nice complete dishonest ignoring of the fact that many — if not most — who accept evolution ARE NOT ATHEISTS.
Ken Miller and Francis Collins alone are sufficient to show that your claims are utter lies.
Really, why should anyone take you seriously when your claims are so transparently dishonest?
“In this case, you believe in fallacious dating methods that cannot determine correct measurements for objects of known age, and are built on crucial assumptions that cannot be verified by any means.”
You have yet to show actual fallacy in the dating methods.
“Because of this, you disavow the authenticity and authority of a historical document that has been corroborated archeologically time and time again, simply because this account of origins does not align with your own presupposed worldview.”
Whoa, please provide documentation of this accuracy. Merely asserting it is not evidence.
“Ironically, evolutionists do not have a problem conceding any single recorded historical event in the Bible, except for the ones that directly contradict their belief in naturalism (i.e. creation ex nihilo, a worldwide flood, etc.).”
Well, there’s also the problem of there being absolutely no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. Hell, that one was being tossed out even before Darwin’s time.
“I might reciprocate that you cannot prove evolution”
Nothing in science is ever proven.
“by simply disproving creation,”
I have never claimed that disproving Biblical creationism would prove evolution, you shameless liar.
“but the basis for that idea is a logical fallacy because the event of creation is ultimately inseparable from the creation itself (which we observe).”
You have yet to demonstrate that what “we observe” is actually a “creation”. Even when you do this, you do not demonstrate that the Biblical creation account is the correct account for this creation. Why not another religion’s creation account? Why not a creation account that no human has yet considered?
“I would say that because creation is both necessary and apparent, that evolution is indeed irrelevant, however.”
Well, you can say that, but it doesn’t make your assertion that creation is “necessary and apparent” true.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
It’s nice to finally see a production that doesn’t follow the herd in the “a priori”, “unprovable” assumption of methodological naturalism.
The religious dogma of secular humanism is a stain on the scientific community.
In scientific circles today, if you don’t believe that all of existence is one big cosmic fluke, you’re considered a religious bigot, or just plain stupid.
So it’s nice to see that there are intelligent projects that at least open the door to the possibility that we are not just the offspring of an accidental explosion that happened billions of years ago.
Good on you Ben, for standing up against darwinian fascism.
September 15th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
–Glen Davidson,
About me your wrote, …“that you can’t discuss or understand the range of issues involved is your problem.”
My purpose in zeroing in on a simple point was to provide a little focus for you because you don’t seem to be able to do it for yourself.–
What you don’t know is that the interaction of science and philosophy is rather complex when it comes right down to it. It isn’t simplistic like you and Dembski suppose.
– Apparently, you didn’t get the hint, so I will come out with it. Writing forty of fifty paragraphs when one will suffice does not prove intelligence or knowledge, it only proves verbosity.–
The trouble is that you have no clue about what’s involved, so you think that an argument from authority, along with some misapprehensions of philosophy, are sufficient. You can’t discuss anything, so you want to make my learning into a problem.
–That your insufferably long posts do not even address the issue is even more annoying.–
You don’t understand the issue, as has become painfully obvious.
–That is why I narrowed the issue to ONE ASPECT OF ONE TOPIC—hint-hint-hint—it’s your cue to make a point, shut up, and get out.–
This is how it always ends, we discuss the issues, you who don’t know anything get angry that you have nothing to say, and get nasty.
–The idea is go straight to the issue—not to keep shooting arrows endlessly, hoping that one day you will hit a target,–
I’d like you to be able even to discern what the target is.
–Your latest offering shoots about thirty more arrows, none of which even make it to the outside ring. My original point was simple: YOUR EXAMPLE citing Dembski’s comment about the Logos theory of the Gospel as proof that ID is faith-based is illogical. Dembski’s statement was made in a theological/philosophical context, and therefore does not relate to the question about whether or not ID’s methodology is empirically based. I showed that your contention was wrong, and I made the point SUCCINCTLY.–
If stupid and succinct mean the same thing to you, go ahead and believe that.
–Incredibly, your interminable response ignores this one and only point. I am therefore left to wonder whether you just like to read your own prose or whether you have a problem with reading comprehension. –
Unfortunately, you are incapable of thinking from the evidence, and blither around the evidence that Dembski is theology-driven with a bunch of trivial side issues.
–Instead you weasel out by saying, “I didn’t suppose or claim that he ever defined (ID) it as dependant on religion.” Oh no? Well then, what was your point in raising the issue of logos theory in the first place? I didn’t bring it up, you did. Apparently, you will not allow Dembski to define his own theory. If he insists that ID is empirically based, you will simply say, “sorry, we don’t allow people to speak for themselves.–
He spoke for himself, and essentially said that ID is “Logos” of John 1. You can’t accept that Dembski speaks out of both sides of his mouth, so you deny the most obvious fact, that, for Dembski at least, ID is religiously motivated.
–We accuse them of being so enamored with their Christianity that they lost all sense of judgment and can’t possibly know where religious faith ends and empirical observation begins.” What bigotry.–
Yes, you’re incredibly bigoted, close-minded, and unable to make reasonable inferences from the data.
–Your mission, then, should you choose to accept it, is to defend your ridiculous and bigoted assertion that Dembski’s Theological comment about Logos theory proves that his science is not empirically based. Also, try to make every word count. If you can’t do both, do neither.–
Well, I’ve spent too much time responding to someone who can’t begin to make a reasonable argument. Try a little bit of schooling, it might make you capable of at least reading what I write, if not of responding coherently.
The fact is that Dembski’s “Logos statement” does not by itself show that ID isn’t religiously based. Yours and his utter inability to come up with any kind of evidence that would actually pass muster in forensics or in science to demonstrate empiricism is what show that it isn’t science. I made this point to you earlier, but you ignore whatever you don’t understand, which is about everything. Since it isn’t evidence-based, it must have some other motivation, and that religious motivation is altogether obvious even without Dembski’s Logos statement, and more so with it.
I will probably not respond further to you, since you never properly address the issues involved, any more than that fatuous JAD does (which is sort of a response to him, I know, but if it’s more than he deserves, it’s still very little).
I suspect that I can at least have a decent discussion with Kevin Miller, unlike you who want authority to stand where you are incapable of any substance (haven’t seen any yet from you).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Intelligent Design (is there another sort?) is evident everywhere in both the animate and inanimate worlds. Those who can not see it are the same sorts who are also deaf to whar Einstein called the music of the spheres. These sensory disdavantaged creatures suffer from a congenital malaise known as the “innate compulsive irreversible atheism syndrome,” ICIAS for short. They can’t help it as they were “born that way” as clearly documented in William Wright’s book with that title.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
I split my response to Kevin Miller into several posts–they should be close together, if not sequential.
–Glen Davidson,
Thanks for being such a lively participant on this blog. However, I’m afraid your enthusiasm may have gotten in the way of a few facts.–
I’m afraid that your claim that I have neglected any facts is itself markedly lacking in fact. Of course I don’t see the matter as you do, I see it as a philosopher does, and just because I disagree with your tendentious interpretation does not mean that I quoted anything out of context, or related anything that wasn’t the truth.
–Case in point: When you quoted me in comment 1090, you did so out of context.–
I included everything that was in that section. The earlier section of your post didn’t have a lot to do with the later section. What is more, I linked to your post. What am I supposed to do, include the entire thread before you’ll allow that it wasn’t out of context? I followed standard procedures, I included a lot of context, and I linked to the rest.
–What I wrote was not meant as an apology for ID but an explanation of why ID is friendlier to theism than classical Darwinism.–
I neither said that it was intended to be an apology for ID nor that it was. I said that ID is apologetics. Here it is:
________”This tells us all that we need to know about both ID and about the movie. What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge “Designer”, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for “potential signs of intelligence in nature”.
That is not science, that’s apologetics.”_______
Try to get your facts straight, Mr. Miller. It’s your “explanation” that indicates that ID is apologetics, not your explanation that is an apology for ID.
–What I said was, ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer,–
No, the relevant statement was not that ID leaves room in its paradigm for an active designer, the relevant statement (the one to which I referred in my comments) was, “ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself…”. That is not just leaving it open, so you’ve subtly altered your point without any justification for said alteration.
September 15th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Continuing my response to Miller:
Miller said:
–whereas the best that Darwinism allows is some sort of non-involved deity or a deity that interacts with the world in a way we cannot measure.–
That’s not the “best that Darwinism allows” (and why can’t you people ever get it right? In the US it isn’t “Darwinism” as such), it is the best that the evidence allows. You have no business suggesting that we leave out God at the start, we only leave out God for the same reason that meteorology leaves out God, the evidence just isn’t there for either meteorology or biology.
–Hardly a satisfying situation for your average theist.–
Which is irrelevant to science and its practices. Are you going to write a movie about how meteorology leaves God out of the picture?
–Even so, it is not so much a criticism of Darwinism as a mere a statement of fact, and I don’t see how it can be construed as an endorsement of ID.–
Did I call it an endorsement of ID? No, I did not. You’re setting up strawmen left and right.
–If you read my entire conversation with Peter Chattaway, you will see that it was merely meant as a point of clarification.–
Yes, I don’t care what it was. What you wrote is what I was interested in, and how completely wrong you are that we aren’t willing to consider intelligence acting in nature (we do all the time where the evidence exists), and how you admit that God is insinuated into ID from the beginning.
–I can accept the above mistake as a potential oversight on your part.–
Sorry, I didn’t make any mistake, you just assumed that I wrote what I did not in fact write. If you care to pursue this any further, please bring up any kind of justification you might have for your attacks.
–However, my real bone of contention is when you say, “What Miller doesn’t know is that science doesn’t presuppose entities like God or the wink-wink nudge-nudge ‘Designer’, it looks for the best hypothesis. He is trying to tell us that ID is science because it has decided already that God (or “the Designer”) is at the heart of nature, so instead of simply searching for the best explanation, ID searches for ‘potential signs of intelligence in nature’.”
I meant nothing of the sort, Glen, and I suspect you know that to be true.–
I know very well what you wrote, and I properly interpreted it. And yes of course it’s an interpretation, but it isn’t an unwarranted one.
–At best, your interpretation of my post is just plain wrong. At worst, it is a wilful distortion of the facts.–
It is neither, and again you fail to bring any sort of justifiable evidence against my reading of what you wrote.
–Perhaps it will help if I clarify things a little: To disqualify ID merely because it starts from a particular philosophical position is ridiculous.–
There are philosophical positions which have assumptions in them which cannot be justified, and there are philosophical positions which merely formalize the practices of working science and forensics. Indeed, science essentially operated without a real philosophical basis up until the time of Hume and Kant, because the old metaphysical philosophy didn’t work in science (though some of its formalization of how to treat evidence did), and no satisfying new philosophy existed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
–Who doesn’t do science from a philosophical position?–
The most that Newton had were some rules of inference in science. He was not working within the edifice of ancient or medieval philosophy as such, he merely borrowed the rules that philosophy had acknowledged regarding evidence. He did not begin with the assumption that God was “working in the solar system,” though it is true that he let God take care of the gaps left over.
Only if you insist that the rules of science “come from philosophy,” when it is at least as arguable that they originally came from practical matters, can you even begin to claim that science necessarily operates from a philosophical position. The fact that philosophy helps to deal with empiricism does not obviously mean that it is the basis from which empiricism is done.
What is perhaps more important is that I actually discussed a good deal that you ignore, like the consistency of sticking with the philosophy and/or scientific positions that work in meteorology when one is also doing biology. Here you come up with a lot of strawmen to attack, while you ignore the importance of consistency in science. Why am I not surprised at the lack of consistency between what you wrote previously and what you wrote more recently, and at the lack of consistency between what I really wrote and what you claim that I wrote?
The fact is that IDists generally accept the “philosophy” or science that we use everywhere in our science, except that they refuse to follow the same proven methods where it comes to biology. Ignore that point as many times as you wish, Mr. Miller, but it remains a gaping hole in your treatment of the issue.
But then I hardly allow that medieval philosophy has stood the test of time anyway, so that on philosophical grounds ID fails, even before it fails on empirical grounds.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where ‘both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus.’”
Modern horses, of course, have only 1 working toe on each foot– the middle toe. But the “missing” toes didn’t totally disappear– they still exist as small vestigial bones that are not used. Vestiges lose most or all of their original function.
Sometimes, in a few individual animals, these vestigial toes return to their original form (at least partly), as in the case of modern horses with more than one functioning toe on each foot. In that case it is called an atavism. Another example of an atavism would be the occasional whale found with hind limbs.
Vestigial digits are also called dewclaws. Here’s a picture of goat and cow dewclaws:
http://www.goatworld.com/health/dewclaw.shtml
How would ID/creationism explain such a thing?
btw Marilyn, what exactly did that article from the January 1981 issue of National Geographic say?
(We’ve already seen that the article from the later issue of NG was written in support of evolution.)
September 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
–That’s all science is: conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation—a constellation of unprovable assumptions.–
No, that isn’t even close to what science is. It is a way of dealing with the world in an “intersubjectively sound” (I hate use “subjective” at all, but it gets the point across) manner. Kant detailed some of the “unproven assumptions” that necessarily go into science, and our understanding of those have been honed and shaped over time into a more nuanced and sound manner (for instance, we know that at least some of Kant’s “givens” are shaped by experience), still it is true that in the most foundational sense we cannot prove or empirically demonstrate that we know the world “as it really is,” so to speak.
But as Kant (who was no atheist, by the way) noted, we can agree on how we do understand the world, and from there we can do satisfactory empirical science. And modern science is “based” upon his philosophy and those evolved from it, if any, not upon the unwarranted claims of medieval philosophy. Metaphysics is just speculation, while science operates according to working understandings and constructive capabilities of the mind to work through empirical data in a mutually (”intersubjectively”) agreed-upon manner. You want to claim that ID is equivalent to this, when it simply assumes that a sort of philosopher’s God exists, even though it cannot show that this God exist in either an empirical sense or in the “intersubjectively sound” sense that much of modern philosophy understands our “prior assumptions” to be.
–If you don’t believe me, just look at someone like Richard Dawkins.–
Dawkins is not my God, or any kind of authority to me.
–While he claims his atheism is inferred from the evidence—which it may have been at one point—his scientific writings are clearly meant as an apologetic for his atheistic point of view.–
Do you have some kind of legitimate point? Dawkins has his own problems with philosophy and theology, they aren’t mine, or science’s in general.
–His atheism doesn’t flow from his science; his science flows from his atheism.–
I see absolutely no justification for this claim. More importantly, this has no bearing upon your claim that science is simply conceptual model building upon a philosophical foundation. Anyone who leaves out the empirical matters of science, and the attempts in modern science and modern philosophy to remain true to the evidence, is hardly an authority on either science or philosophy.
–So if you want to disqualify anyone for mixing their philosophical presuppositions with their science, Dawkins is your man.–
Nothing at all in your “argument” showed that Dawkins’s science comes from his atheistic position. I have faulted Dawkins at times when he got into philosophical matters (recently on Panda’s Thumb), but on the whole he just isn’t my concern. The perversion of science is.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Continuing my response to Miller:
–You may not like ID’s philosophical starting point, just as many others may not like Richard Dawkins’s starting point.–
I do not like ID starting with a philosophical position which assumes that entities are acting without there being any kind of evidence for these undetected entities. Not all philosophical positions are the same, and it’s absurd that you treat them as equals. That you write as if they are all equal indicates that, as a writer for a movie which delves into both philosophy and science, you cannot do justice to the issues involved.
–But if so, that is a philosophical issue, not a scientific one.–
Evidently you are without any adequate knowledge of science. Science and modern philosophy are meshed together, with give and take in both disciplines. Einstein was something of a philosopher, as were most of the early quantum theorists. The majority of us who know philosophy as well as science understand how illegitimate the metaphysics behind ID really is, how it completely fails to follow the methods of either science or of modern philosophy.
Why don’t you make a movie about how we reject Hindu philosophy in science like we reject Aquinas’s philosophy in science? Of course we do, because Hindu philosophy, like medieval philosophy, merely assumes what it cannot show empirically or “intersubjectively,” instead resting many of its claims upon prior religious assumptions. So not only does your “argument” fall flat on philosophical and scientific grounds, evidently you’re insisting upon that a philosophy coming out of Western religion is as legitimate as modern philosophies which make as few assumptions as possible (and ground them in “intersubjectivity” as well”).
Why do you suppose that most of the world adopts the philosophical bases for science, while most reject the philosophies behind ID? It’s because the philosophical basis with which science is associated happens to yield practical and intellectual results, while the philosophies of the IDists belong to Western culture and are not universally applicable.
–If you’re going to reject ID—or Richard Dawkins—you need to do so on the basis of their science.–
We do. The fact that you ignore all of the scientific arguments that I made against ID explains much of your unjustifiable attacks upon my justified argumentation.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Continuing my response to Miller:
–Which brings me back to my post: Contrary to your interpretation, I am not arguing that ID should be classified as science because it begins with the assumption that God is at the heart of nature. I’m merely arguing that ID should not be disqualified on this basis.–
Sorry, not only does your distinction not make much difference, it doesn’t relate what you wrote in your post, which was:
_______”ID, on the other hand, suggests that rather than something tacked onto one’s interpretation of science, God–or whoever you believe to be the Intelligent Designer–is literally at the heart of nature itself, as expressed through information like the genetic code. Therefore, the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise rather than a pseudo-scientific one.”_______
You said that ID suggests that God or the “Designer” is at the heart of nature itself, then you claimed that “therefore the search for potential signs of intelligence in nature [which may be taken as a euphemism for ID] becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise.”
It was precisely their “suggestion” that God or “Designer” is at the heart of nature that was your premise for why ID becomes a legitimate scientific enterprise. I “interpreted” you justly, and you simply deny it without dealing with the evidence that I included.
–As I understand it, the core scientific program of ID seeks to explain how information moves in and out of biological systems. That’s it.–
What’s scientific about it? And how do they seek to find out how information moves in and out of biological systems? More importantly, how would that relate to their core design claims? You left those out, didn’t you (though it’s true that they fail to do science to find evidence for design in nature)?
Look, we know very well what ID claims, and that it fails to provide any legitimate criteria for what would be “designed,” claiming instead that a false dilemma (it is a false dilemma, but they don’t call it that) would provide “evidence” for ID. Indeed, if it is studying information in biological systems in a scientific manner at all, this has nothing to do with their core claims, which are that a designer is responsible.
If they were serious about design being in nature, they’d predict that rational “planning” of organisms would be in evidence, and that purpose, novelty, and “borrowing” might also be visible. Because none of these are (as meant in science), they refuse to predict that the designer did what known designers do, instead pretending that faulting another theory is all they have to do in order to be scientific.
–All of the religious baggage that gets tagged onto the movement is essentially a red herring perpetuated by their opponents.–
Right, that’s why they speak largely to religious audiences, refuse to discuss the age of the earth, and repeatedly claim that ID points toward the supernatural. Remember, we listen to the IDists, and at a speech I attended, Behe claimed that the reason we reject ID is merely that it points beyond science. Hardly, we reject it because nothing in biology points beyond the cause and effect standard practices of science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Continuing my response to Miller:
–Darwinian evolutionists think they’ve already solved the information problem by proposing purely natural information-producing mechanisms, such as random mutations and natural selection.–
You really don’t know the science, do you? There are quite a large number of information problems in biology at present, notably because a whole lot of information has recently become available through DNA sequencing.
Yet virtually all of the data point to nothing but the familiar non-teleological mechanisms known from the laboratory and in the collected data. Moreover, the predictions of non-teleoligcal evolution have been satisfied by the evidence, while teleology and the marks of rational thought are not seen. Thus we stick with the evidence, no matter how much theology attempts to intrude into science.
–But the ID proponents are skeptical that such mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin and diversity of life.–
Huh, and very few of them are biologists. We do have the Moonie biologist Jonathan Wells, and biochemist Behe, but Dembski is a philosopher/mathematician, Phil Johnson is an attorney, Paul Nelson is a philosopher (who can’t answer the questions we pose on PT), you have a host of engineers, physicians, and the like, while nearly all biologists are satisfied with the direction in which research is going. Where is the justification for their “skepticism”?
–In their search for a more satisfying hypothesis, they are willing to consider all possible explanations—including some form of superior intelligence.–
Really. Why don’t they answer our questions? You know, we discuss these issues on numerous forums, while ID forums are often closed to us. Still, they could answer our questions on science forums–if they had answers. I see that you don’t supply any answers either, but merely try to claim that ID is scientific without your telling us any way in which they actually do science, or how they conform to science practices.
I have yet to see them consider anything but a “superior intelligence,” and this all without any kind of cause and effect relationship being proposed (this is classical science, so the language of causality is appropriate). I’ve brought this up in at least one post, and instead of you dealing with such a necessary condition to do science, you’re claiming that I wrote what I didn’t write, and claiming that you wrote something other than to what I actually responded.
–I fail to see how that makes them unscientific.–
Of course you do, because you don’t understand to what we’re objecting. We’re objecting to the claim that intelligence was involved without there being any evidence either for an inscrutable designer (one not acting like us, but which can nonetheless be seen to act in ways that produce what we see), or the evidence for the marks of design that we use to understand whether or not an object was designed by humans (which we could use even if the designer was unknown).
We’ll consider any investigable cause that leads to observable effects. We’re not willing to “consider” a “cause” that cannot be shown to produce what we see, or which perhaps does design in an intelligible manner, yet doesn’t produce the patterns seen in biological change. It’s the evidence that fails, and you completely fail to deal with our actual objections.
–In fact, I think it displays an open-mindedness that seems sorely lacking on the part of their purely Darwinian counterparts—including,–
If they and you were open-minded, you’d actually deal with scientific issues, not monotonously droning on about the “open-mindedness” of those who fail to utilize the methods of either modern science or modern philosophy.
–if I may say so, Mr. Glen A. Davidson.–
You cannot legitimately say so. I’ve made the point that I am completely willing to consider anything that fits the accepted methods in forensics and of science (which cannot honestly exclude the “supernatural” except by defining the “supernatural” as something totally unreachable with legitimate epistemologies). We’re (at least those of us steeped in philosophy) not denying that a superior intelligence could never operate in the biosphere, only that there have to be some observed match between the purported cause and the “effects” that we see in organisms.
Open-mindedness entails giving up meaningless claims when they have proven to be meaningless. That is why I am open-minded, and your IDists are not—they cling to a “cause” for which they claim no causal markers, which supposedly produced the effects which are predicted by non-teleological evolutionary theory. Hanging onto a non-falsifiable “hypothesis” is not open-minded at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com2kxyc7
September 15th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I have a rather simple question for anyone willing to rise to the challenge. If ID is so Intelligent, answer me this…
Where is the fruit? I am no theist but heres a quote some of you may recognize…
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
So…
Name one single scientific breakthrough, with measurable benefits to mankind, that has come out of the idea of Intelligent Design. Just one…
Surely its not the money. ID is supported by some very wealthy organizations (and movie makers).
I eagerly await an answer…
September 16th, 2007 at 2:15 am
I’d begun a lengthly rebuttal to truthlover’s claim, but then I hit “Ctrl-W” accidentally and closed the tab.
I was going to start over, but then I realised that there’s really no need. One statement in truthlover’s posting says it all:
“The foundational assumption of evolutionary theory and of its underpinning philosophical framework–humanism–is that God doesn’t exist and thus didn’t create.”
That claim is a lie. An outright, brazen, shameless lie.
The “foundational assumption” of the theory of evolution is the same as the “foundational assumption” of all of science: that the fundamental properties of the universe have not changed and will remain constant.
That’s it. Everything else that follows is observation and conclusion.
The theory of evolution neither assumes nor concludes that any specific deity, or any deities in general, do not exist. Evolution cannot make such a statement, as such a statement is outside of the realm of science. As such, when truthlover claims that the theory of evolution states or assumes that God does not exist, it is clear that either truthlover has done no research on the subject — in which case nothing that he or she says about evolution can be considered reliable — or truthlover is lying outright — in which case nothing that he or she says about anything can be considered reliable.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:20 am
“In scientific circles today, if you don’t believe that all of existence is one big cosmic fluke, you’re considered a religious bigot, or just plain stupid.”
Which is why Ken Miller and Francis collins are so reviled…
Oh, wait, they’re not. It would seem as though you’re just lying.
September 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46ed356e68ecba9f;act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=60
Not content making a perfect fool of himself here, Glen Davidson as you can see (from the above link) is repeating his irrational drivel for the benefit of his wildly applauding cronies at his home base, “After The Bar Closes” which, with P.Z. Myers’ “Pharyngula,” is one of the very few surviving bastions of the most infantile, the most ill conceived, and without question the most enduring hoax in the history of science - Darwinian mysticism.
“Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so little to so many.”
after Winston Churchill
I will deal with DaveScot/David Springer, William Dembski’s “faithful Chihuahua” and the biggest bully in the history of internet communication, in a separate message.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
I see I am not allowed to react to Glen Davidson’s harangues against me or any other critic of the great Darwinian hoax. His ranting continues to thunderous applause from his fellow atheist cronies at his home base - After The Bar Closes as the following link establishes.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46ed356e68ecba9f;act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=60
I would like an explanation for this obviously biased presentation on the part of the management of this forum.
Panda’s Thumb and Pharyngula are the only two major refuges for Godless Darwinism. I am surprised that any representative of that failed philosophy is not allowed to be countered by a published scientist like myself.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Have I been banned from comment here. Please respond. Neither of my last two messages have appeared.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I’ll just jump right in here. Anyone can believe anything they want. That does not mean that it is the truth. There is only one truth. One truth for example is that people can not jump out a 10 story window and fly. No matter how many books one reads, courses one attends about flying without planes, gliders, kites, parachutes etc., people can not fly. It is a truth that one will always hit the ground if they jump out a 10 story window. It is also a truth that there is a God. You don’t have to believe it, but it is true. How do I know ? A great book to read besides the BIBLE and I agree with almost everything in it is Lee Strobel’s book A Case for a Creator. Secondly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, things always go from order to disorder. Evolution would be the opposite of things going from disorder to order. This is a scientificly proven principle. If science can prove evolution it would have to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I do believe in micro evolution, just look at all the varieties of canines there are and they all evolved from a common ancestor, so I am not saying things do not evolve. I am saying evolution and creation are both theories but the 2nd law supports creationism. That is way more scientificly possible than the belief of life coming from non life. I can’t wait to see this movie and I loved the Creation Museum. For those who deny the existence of God, that does not mean He doesn’t exist and you wont have to stand before Him someday. You can always jump out a window and think you will be able to fly but you will always hit the ground. How much of your eternity are you willing to bet, that God does not exist?
September 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Herod stated, “Where is the fruit?” He then quoted the Bible.
The unmitigated stupidity of such a statement is more than any thinking person should tolerate here.
We’re not talking about Biblical passages here, or even Christianity in particular. We’re discussing evolution vs design, with no particular religion in play here.
You say you’re eagerly awaiting an answer. Save your waiting because you’ll get no answer here. We’re not discussing the Bible, or any specific religious book.
Many people, such as the jungle indians of Equador, or other primitve people who have never heard of the Bible or any other mainline religious writings, yet have a firm assurance in Intelligent Design. Ask those people to prove to you, scientifically, that I.D. is true. They don’t need a science laboratory to tell you that I.D. is for sure true. You tell them about evolution and they would laugh at you, as would 98% of the world’s population.
September 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
The problem with neo-Darwinists that oppose intelligent design is that they never back off of a false claim. Clinging to their “no concession policy,” they often find themselves defending the indefensible in ways that almost seem pathological. To them, strategy matters more than truth.
Consider their claim that ID is religion masquerading as science. Since it is easy to prove such a claim false, one would think that they would give up on that one and move on to something else. But they can’t help themselves in spite of the evidence. Indeed, their imprudence often leads them to challenge both the soundness of the theory and the personal integrity of the author who conceived it.
Nowhere is this more evident that in the work of William Dembski, an ID scientist who has developed a method for detecting design in nature. In effect, his methodology constitutes a filtering process that asks three questions in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it?
If, at step one, things can be explained by some law, or, at step two, things can be explained by chance, then it should not be attributed to design. Only if there is no other explanation, does one conclude that design is the best inference. Obviously, this is not a methodology driven by a religious bias, assuming as it does that, in most cases, a design inference is not called for.
But ideologues are not moved by facts. One blogger on this thread, with a tenth of Dembski’s intelligence and none of his talent, slanders the author and calls him dishonest for daring to state the obvious—that intelligent design is empirically-based, not faith-based. The hubris involved in making such a charge is all the more astonishing given the fact that the critic in question worships at the altar of methodological naturalism—an anti-religious approach to research that rules out design even before the investigation begins. It has obviously never occurred to him that if ID was religious in nature, it could hardly have become an attraction to the many agnostics who subscribe to it.
Perhaps we should respond in kind and accuse neo-Darwinists of doing what they accuse us of doing–allowing their world view to contaminate their research. Barbara Forrest, after all, that paragon of impartiality that was called on to testify at the Dover trial, is, as it turns out, a proud board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Should I mention that this fact was once registered in then later omitted from her Wikipedia biogrphy. And what can we say of Eugenie Scott, self professed non-theist and perennial critic of intelligent design. Why are they immune from the the same kind of suspicion–that somehow their dedication to atheistic naturalism compromises their ability to approach science in an objective way and prompts them to reject all reasonable evidence that might lead to a design inference.
Somehow, they can’t appreciate the obvious contradictions in their position. One the one hand, they rule out design in principle; on the other hand, they demand for proof for it. One the one hand, they say ID isn’t science; on the other hand, they define science in ways that rule out ID. Never mind that the criteria by which we differentiate legitimate science from pseudo-science is a subject about which reasonable people may disagree and debate about. But as far as the Darwinists are concerned, there is and will be no debate. Why?—because they say so, that’s why. This is the environment into which ID scientists must introduce some semblance of rational thought. Unfortunately, they are not permitted to enter into the fray because, as the film “Expelled” will show— NO INTELLIGENCE IS ALLOWED.
And so the beat goes on. They continue to misrepresent ID as religious, pseudo-science, and defame all those who dare to question their sacred religion of neo-Darwinism. Bullying anyone who gets in their way, they refuse tenure, reject sound research, and even shut down labs they deem “inappropriate” (it’s happening right now at Baylor, an ostensibly Christian university). On any forum, they always make it a point to get in the last word and dominate the discourse with wordy posts five times longer than the points they are responding to. The idea is to create the illusion that they have a large reservoir of knowledge by flooding the internet with words. Watch for it on this thread.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Sorry about my impatience. I have a long history of being treated with contempt by both sides of this idiotic debate, a debate that should never have been initiated. It was the self generated “IDists” that insisted on starting this debate with such pathetic suggestions that Intelligent Design was an “inference” or that it could be “proved mathematically.” A designed and purposeful universe, animate and inanimate has been recognized by every great scientist since Galileo. It is a given from which all research begins. Those like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers who are so intellectually disadvantaged as to openly deny a Creator deserve nothing but contempt just as do those who insist on trying to force science into a Judeo-Christian straghtjacket. Religion, and Darwinism is definitely a religion, has no place in science, never did have and never will have. I say a pox on both their houses. So did Albert Einstein -
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…. They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 16th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
For those who might be interested in the real origins of the much touted “Intelligent Design movement,” I refer them to -
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-62.html
and my message September 16, 07, 06:32
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 16th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
“Name one single scientific breakthrough, with measurable benefits to mankind, that has come out of the idea of Intelligent Design. Just one…”
The mouse trap!
September 16th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
HEROD said
“Name one single scientific breakthrough, with measurable benefits to mankind, that has come out of the idea of Intelligent Design. Just one…”
Can you name any invention, cure or breakthrough that HASN’T relied on Intelligent Design??? Just one!
September 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am
As you are reading this comment you have to now have decide if it was created by an intelligent agency or was it simply done by random chance and natural selection. If you can observe the inference of intelligent agency…
Repeating this experiment will produce the same predicted result!
September 17th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Name a single contribution that Godless, aimless, purposeless Darwinism has made to any aspect of the human condition. Now there is a challenge worthy of response, a response that will never appear.
One thing is for certain. It has served as a magnet for every congenital atheist within cybershot to join his “prescribed,” “dyed-in-the-wool,” “born that way” cronies in such ideological cesspools as Pharyngula and After The Bar Closes, among the last outposts of the greatest hoax ever foisted on an unsuspecting public in the history of human communication.
“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.”
Montaigne
Only some of us Miguel!
“A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 17th, 2007 at 8:15 am
In the USA, (from the outside) it seems to be Christian = Creationist
Can I just remind you that there is a lot more world than the US, and in Europe in particular CHristians tend to be more Leftwing, more sensible and more open to discussion than in N. America. We’re not all raving fundies.
I’m an evangelical Christian who champions evolution. I am not alone in the UK.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
It’s sad to see Ben Stein join the ranks of Michael Moore and ilk. I always liked Ben. This project will always and forever taint Mr Stein as a propagandist.
Why, Ben? Why?
September 17th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Now for DaveScot/David Springer who last posted in message 1292. Those numbers may change.
He is now proudly in charge at Uncommon Descent for starters. The biggest bully in the history of internet communication is now running Uncommon Descent, the same bully who wants me back there so he can throw me out again for a third time. This egomaniacal sociopath, this out patient, this unprincipled, power crazed hypocrite claims that I should not “bite the hand that feeds me.” Since when has Uncommon Descent or William Dembski ever fed me? I don’t even exist either there or at the “Discovery Institute, a Christian Institution” another subsidiary of the so called “Intelligent Design Movement.” There is no intelligent design Movement. There is only intelligent design. Since when did reality require a movement? I just provided a link to the real pioneers in presenting intelligent design in their own words long before Uncommon Descent, The Discovery Instutute, William Dembski or David Springer ever decided to pretend they had something new to offer. All they have ever done is attack the Darwinian hoax and provoke its supporters to respond in kind. What has any member of the Discovery Institute ever produced as a substitute for the Darwinian fantasy? Nothing -absolutely nothing.
There has always been only one unresolved matter in all of the evolutionary literature. That is the MECHANISM by which evolution took place in the distant past. Building on the convictions of some of the finest scientists of the post Darwinian era, I have proposed an hypothesis in complete accord with EVERYTHING now being disclosed by both the experimental laboratory and the fossil record - “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.” Rivista di Biologia, 98: 155-166, 2005. Where may I find the publications of any member of the Discovery Institute on the only matter that has ever been in question? I can ask the same question of the Darwinians and expect the same response - stony silence.
Who does David Springer produce as the REAL scientists enlightening us all about the great mystery of phylogeny? Why he produces William Dembski of course. That is to be expected, but Salvador Cordova too? I am confident that Cordova would never consider himself worthy of such praise. Incidentally, Salvador used to be my ally but then decided that it is better that I don’t exist, thereby joining all the rest of the Discovery Institute. Only DaveScot/David Springer is stupid enough to acknowledge my existence and thereby provide me this golden opportunity to expose him for what he has always been, a ruthless, power intoxicated bully who will go to any length to preserve his image of himself as above reproach, the “New Messiah” on everything from man made global warming to mass species extinction. He denies both! No one at Uncommon Descent dare take exception to him. He bans people at the slightest suggestion he might be wrong. It is essential to his psyche if you can call it that.
Thank you David Springer for, by denigrating me publicly as you always do, thereby giving me this wonderful opportunity to capitalize on the arrogant unprincipled hypocricy with which you have always presented yourself. Incidentally, I don’t think you believe a word of what Dembski stands for.
As for Dembski, who has never mentioned my name in his many books or even in the ephemeral world of cyberspace, I have been publicly informed by his faithful servant, DaveScot/David Springer - “Dembski thinks you are nuts.”
So much for Dembski, David Springer and the whole damn Discovery Institute.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“Name a single contribution that Godless, aimless, purposeless Darwinism has made to any aspect of the human condition. Now there is a challenge worthy of response, a response that will never appear.”
I notice that you still have not offered a single rational argument thus far. You simply toss out mindless strawmen, such as continuing to refer to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” and dishonestly claiming that it is “godless”. You also repeatedly assert that the mechanism of “past evolution” has never been explained, even though it has been explained, multiple times.
Why should anyone consider the rantings of a transparent liar such as yourself?
September 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
“As you are reading this comment you have to now have decide if it was created by an intelligent agency or was it simply done by random chance and natural selection. If you can observe the inference of intelligent agency…”
Is your comment capable of self-replication or composed completely of elements capable of the same? If not, then what, exactly, is your point?
September 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“Can you name any invention, cure or breakthrough that HASN’T relied on Intelligent Design???”
All of them.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“Many people, such as the jungle indians of Equador, or other primitve people who have never heard of the Bible or any other mainline religious writings, yet have a firm assurance in Intelligent Design. Ask those people to prove to you, scientifically, that I.D. is true. They don’t need a science laboratory to tell you that I.D. is for sure true. You tell them about evolution and they would laugh at you, as would 98% of the world’s population.”
And how many of this 98% of the world’s population (I note that you do not substantiate this percentage) have sufficient knowledge of biological sciences to make an accurate assessment of the theory of evolution?
You appear to be appealing to popularity, which is a logical fallacy.
September 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“I’ll just jump right in here. Anyone can believe anything they want. That does not mean that it is the truth. There is only one truth.”
Okay. Nice and meaningless thus far.
“One truth for example is that people can not jump out a 10 story window and fly. No matter how many books one reads, courses one attends about flying without planes, gliders, kites, parachutes etc., people can not fly. It is a truth that one will always hit the ground if they jump out a 10 story window.”
This is supported by research. Now, can you relate it to the current discussion?
“It is also a truth that there is a God.”
Please demonstrate that this claim is true. Also demonstrate the specific “God”, out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history and explain how you have determined the specific God to the exclusion of all others.
“You don’t have to believe it, but it is true.”
Your arrogant unsupported assertion is noted.
“How do I know ? A great book to read besides the BIBLE and I agree with almost everything in it is Lee Strobel’s book A Case for a Creator.”
This is not evidence.
“Secondly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, things always go from order to disorder.”
You do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The simplest means of stating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the total entropy of a closed system can never decrease.
“Evolution would be the opposite of things going from disorder to order.”
No, it is not. The theory of evolution deals with change in allele frequencies over time. But this isn’t relevant, because you’ve misstated the Second Law of Thermodynamics anyway; either you do not understand the science that you are attempting to apply, or you are lying.
“This is a scientificly proven principle.”
Nothing in science is ever proven, and your stating of the second law of thermodynamics is demonstratably false.
“If science can prove evolution it would have to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
No, it would not. That you have misstated the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not evidence that the theory of evolution is false.
“I do believe in micro evolution, just look at all the varieties of canines there are and they all evolved from a common ancestor, so I am not saying things do not evolve. I am saying evolution and creation are both theories but the 2nd law supports creationism.”
No, the Second Law does not support “Creationism”. You have already shown that you do not even understand the Second Law, thus your conclusion is meaningless.
“That is way more scientificly possible than the belief of life coming from non life.”
The theory of evolution does not address “life coming from non-life”. In addition to not understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is clear that you also do not understand the theory of evolution.
“I can’t wait to see this movie and I loved the Creation Museum.”
It would appear that you enjoy obtaining information from dishonest sources while remaining willfully ignorant about actual science.
“For those who deny the existence of God, that does not mean He doesn’t exist and you wont have to stand before Him someday.”
Unsupported assertion. Also completely irrelevant, as the theory of evolution in no way addresses the existence of any deities.
“You can always jump out a window and think you will be able to fly but you will always hit the ground.”
Irrelevant.
” How much of your eternity are you willing to bet, that God does not exist?”
Irrelevant.
Do you have any honest or intelligent arguments to make?
September 17th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I missed this a few weeks ago, but it needs to be addressed.
“If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival.”
This claim is false. The person who made the claim is a liar. The theory of evolution merely explains events within biological systems. It neither defines nor rules out methods for judging actions. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
September 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Ben, seeing over 1000 comments I doubt this will be read by anyone. Yet reading through quite a few of these comments shows how right you are. People are afraid to let other people think for themselves, and would rather call them a fool then realize that they themselves might just be wrong. If one knows that they are right isnt it enough to know that they have the stronger argument. People with freedom deserve to hear all sides of an issue. People ignore you point and claim your a liar for including Einstein, yet Einstein very obviously believed in a God even if it was an non personal God. Are people that afraid of any concept that does not fit in their pretty package that allows them to act as they please. Newton himself devoted many volumes of notes to his persoanl study of the Bible. I guess according to todays standereds he was a loon, though im sure none if any of the people posting here today could create calculus on their own. There are obviously genius’s on both sides of the deabte and just because one is more politically correct does not mean it is more true. Science is based on facts. Physics and Chemistry, Electricity and Math. 1+1= 2, Electricity always takes the path of least resistance. A heavy object and a light object fall at the same speed in a vacum. Water is made from Hydrogen and Oxygen. These cases are constant. Evolution is a theory, and has never been proven. Its claim is that it is likely and benificial to think. Considering the true sciences this and some bones are not fact. Yet God is not proven either, both are beliefs. To claim one greater then the other is no less criminal then the dark ages and denying Pasteur’s crazy theory on those funny little invisible germs of his.
If all people can come up with is that you are crazy then they prove you right with every word they say.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Ben, I like and respect you but you might want to stick to topics that you know something about…you are indeed one of the most intelligent people on the planet, but you exemplify how compartmentalized intelligence can be…if there were any science in ID, it would be considered by scientists…as it is, it’s barely fit for a comparative religion course. It’s not even good for religion-it’s embarrassing.
September 17th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
ST says, “I’m an evangelical Christian who champions evolution. I am not alone in the UK.”
ST uses a forum in the U.S. to spout his ignorance.
Why?
Obviously he is a very confused person.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:01 am
In response to Nick
What scientists have been fired and lost tenure and grants for mentioning the possibility that god or a higher being created the physical laws of the universe? What scientists have been fired and lost tenure and grants for mentioning the possibility that god or a higher being created the physical laws of the universe?
Hundreds. I assume that this film will cover some of them. Also, a common response to this statement is it is not true, and names please. My reply is many of these persons are trying to go back in the closet and more publicity will not help them do this. A second response is this is happening and it should be happing. This response is not uncommonly in writing. It was probably mentioned on this site before, but the advice now is STAY IN THE CLOSET if you want to survive academia as a Darwin Skeptic. Excellent advice.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am
In response to ST
“Christians tend to be more Leftwing, more sensible and more open to discussion than in N. America. We’re not all raving fundies.
I do not know one single ID supporter scientist or even ID supporter who is a raving fundi. Can you name one and provide evidence? Most are Catholics or mainline Protestants, some are atheists. Many belong to very liberal churches as I did. Further the last 4 churches I have belonged to, some very large churches, I did not know one member who was an evolutionist. I know this because I gave many talks before all of these churches and did surveys. Surveys since the 1960s have found that 90 percent of Americans hold to some form of creationism, from ID to YEC. Fundies in general OPPOSE ID and support YEC Creationism. Also, I have found Darwinists ARE AS A WHOLE NOT VERY OPEN TO DISCUSSION and, as a rule, are prone to use character assassination to argue, not science. Just read the blogs on here. I love to discuss this issue with Darwinists but most cannot be rational.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:52 am
am looking forward to this movie with great anticipation. Contrary to conjecture on this site, I personally know of one professor at George Mason University (Carolyn Crocker) who was “EXPELLED” for exposing problems with Darwinism. The horror of questioning the church dogma! Hardcore Evolutionist have become as fanatical as the fundies and the time has come to expose those who would impose extradition upon their dissidents.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“Hundreds. I assume that this film will cover some of them. Also, a common response to this statement is it is not true, and names please. My reply is many of these persons are trying to go back in the closet and more publicity will not help them do this”
Wow. A self-reinforcing delusion.
“Evidence? I can’t provide you with evidence! That will just hurt the cause!”
Why should anyone take you seriously?
September 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hi Curmudgeon-at-large
Carolyn Crocker was release due to using fallace information
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/heck_yeahcaroline_crocker_shou.php
“She’s peddling ignorant garbage in her classes, making this less an issue of academic freedom and more one of basic scientific competence.”
She wasn’t teaching biology, she was teach her theological views.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
DaveScot has chosen to respond to my commentary at “braistorms” forum where you will find my response to him posted 18 September, 13:17 below
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=63#000934
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Went to see William Dembski last night at the Univ of Okla. During the Q&A session, Dembski was alone at a podium stage right with a laptop and a bottle of water, taking questions from the long line of hostile askers.
The questions were all challenges with one exception, a guy who (rightly, and unpopularly) questioned the open-mindedness of the majority of the students present. His question was met with jeers and a “Shut up!” from the middle of the auditorium. Exactly.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
The discussion here has at least proven one thing beyond doubt.
Pro-evolutionist Darwinists are dogmatic toward the lie of evolution, and are closed minded concerning the truth of the most important question that confronts every human being . . . “Where did we come from?”
At least they are honest is admitting that they are taking a stance and living by it come hell or high water.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
ST
You state “I’m an evangelical Christian who champions evolution.” I am glad that you live in England. A survey by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research found professors here had the most unfavorable views toward Evangelical Christians (53% did not like them) and the most favorable attitude toward Jews (only 3% did not like Jews) The survey included evangelical Christian colleges, so the number that did not like Evangelic Christians is much higher at secular schools. Mormons were the second most disliked group. If ST lived here he would likely have a difficult time in an American college. A major reason for the negative views is because most Evangelicals are not Darwin fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalists are even more disliked than Evangelicals.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Hi Curmudgeon-at-large,
Basically she was released because she was teaching her theology (non-science) in a science classroom.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/heck_yeahcaroline_crocker_shou.php
“Unfortunately for Dr Crocker, the article gives an account of her biology teaching. She’s peddling ignorant garbage in her classes, making this less an issue of academic freedom and more one of basic scientific competence.”
Using the propaganda of AiG instead of real scientific research is not teaching science.
Would you want your children to learn in a math class 1 + 1 = 3?
September 19th, 2007 at 9:08 am
On the same link to I last presented to “brainstorms,” DaveScot/David Springer now claims that it was I who was posting as DaveScot here on Ben Stein’s blog!!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 19th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I can’t believe that any TV channel is even considering broadcasting a “documentary” of this nature.
The only thing science has a prejudice against is the unprovable and the untestable. If it did not have this is would not be science.
You tell people to think about what their country would be without freedom? Think about what America would be without science and the scientific method. Would you really rather have no technology, no medicine, no knowledge of how the universe actually functions?
You do, of course, have the right to freedom of speech and you are using it. This right is, however, not conferred to the world of published science, where papers must pass strict peer review for very good reasons. Reason being the key word to take away from this.
September 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Mr. Stein, I am very much looking forward to the release of this movie. I have followed the Intelligent Design debate for years and I can attest that the great majority of those against the idea will resort to the lowest of low tactics in their efforts to silence proponents — primarily ridicule (often of the most juvenile character imaginable) and distortion, as many of the comments amply demonstrate, but also and more dangerously the kind of abuse of power and authority that I hope the documentary will do much to expose: blacklisting, character assasination, ostracism, denial of tenure, and the like.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Re: Comment 1317 by StephenB — Well said.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
[…] COMMENTS LATER… I wonder what Ben really thinks about all this. And […]
September 19th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
CRasch Says:
Basically she was released because she was teaching her theology (non-science) in a science classroom.
My response is: What evidence do you have for this? I would love to see some evidence to back this claim up. I have researched this case very carefully and have viewed her PowerPoint and interviewed students and found no evidence whatsoever that she was teaching theology (the study of God) but rather only critiquing Neo-Darwinism. She never even mentioned God, as far as I could determine, in any of her classes. The common charge when someone presents information to cast doubt on Darwin is to accuse them of “teaching theology.”
Secondly, even if she was teaching theology, does this justify terminating her? If every professor was terminated for teaching theology, a lot of professors I had in college would now be out of work. In my PhD work in biology I remember several professors who told us that evolution was Gods means of creating. Evolution is how, God is who. This is teaching theology and I believe that teachers in state Universities have no business telling us what they think God did or did not do. Yet none of these professors were fired. Why not? The reason is because, under the current politically correct climate, it is perfectly appropriate to teach theology in science classrooms, but the problem occurs when you teach the “wrong theology.” One must not question Darwinism and that was Dr. Crooker’s problem, not teaching theology. I never cease to be amazed at how far Darwinists will go to push their world view. The major reasons for termination now are to commit a felony, to sexually molest a student, to misappropriate University money, i. e. steal it, and to question Darwin. Does anyone really believe these offences are all equal?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
CRasch Says:
“Unfortunately for Dr Crocker, the article gives an account of her biology teaching. She’s peddling ignorant garbage in her classes, making this less an issue of academic freedom and more one of basic scientific competence.”
Using the propaganda of AiG instead of real scientific research is not teaching science.
Would you want your children to learn in a math class 1 + 1 = 3?
My response to this is it is pure name calling. First of all, this report deals with a talk she gave, not a class lecture, quite a difference. How can the responder know that “She’s peddling ignorant garbage in her classes” without being there? The examples he gave do not indicate this. Second, her words were distorted in the report CRasch notes in an effort to discount her ideas. Debate is needed but Darwinists are saying that no debate will occur. Darwinism is true and will not be questioned, at least not openly. Actually, many scientists do, but under the table or after swearing allegiance to St Darwin, then, and only then, tactfully citing their concerns in very guarded terms.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Rhology said: “The questions were all challenges with one exception, a guy who (rightly, and unpopularly) questioned the open-mindedness of the majority of the students present. His question was met with jeers and a “Shut up!” from the middle of the auditorium. Exactly.”
Well, there’s an old saying: One must always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“Pro-evolutionist Darwinists are dogmatic toward the lie of evolution,”
Please demonstrate that evolution is a “lie”, rather than dogmatically asserting it.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Ben Stein is a patriot.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“The questions were all challenges with one exception, a guy who (rightly, and unpopularly) questioned the open-mindedness of the majority of the students present. His question was met with jeers and a “Shut up!” from the middle of the auditorium. Exactly.”
I’m convinced. Your vague anecdote is proof positive of a conspiracy.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I am agnostic but from where I stand Darwinian Theory has reached its use-by date.
But one big ask from the Darwinist: In ‘Origins of the Species’ Darwin describes Natural Selection in the following terms;
“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising throught the world, every variation, even the slightest,rejecting…the bad,…adding up all that is good…the improvement of each of each organic being”
How is this not evoking an onmipotent, omniscient, omnipresent power to explain his theory. Darwinists Please Explain!
September 19th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Ooops repeated “of each” in previous post - unfavourable mutation - natural selection is gonna get me now!
September 19th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Mike B said, “Newton himself devoted many volumes of notes to his persoanl study of the Bible. I guess according to todays standereds he was a loon.”
No– then and now he’d be considered a heretic. Although Newton was a very religious man, he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, one of Christianity’s most fundamental doctrines. (If he had been found out back then he would have been in serious trouble, since denying the Trinity was illegal.) And although he was without doubt one of the greatest of scientists, he also dabbled in the occult and alchemy.
btw, do you think Newton’s religious ideas should be taught in Christian seminaries? You know, this would really open up students’ minds to different ideas! Wouldn’t that be great academic freedom?
About theories: I don’t think you understand the meaning of “theory” as scientists use it. Here’s a short video explaining it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html
Furthermore, “theory” can mean a framework of knowledge in other disciplines as well. One example would be music theory, which includes harmony, counterpoint, part-writing, etc. But no one says that music is “just a theory and is unproven.”
September 19th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I have some more to say about Marilyn’s post about Horses
She said,
“In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: ‘Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.’ Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?”
Well, I confess that I committed a terrible sin– I went to the library (we’ve been blessed with an excellent one) and they were able to give me a copy of this article! A good article, if somewhat dated.
Yes, on age 74 there are pictures of hooves from 2 different species of horses. But what it says is this:
“An evolutionary moment is frozen in time. Complete skeletons of the horse Pliohippus verify the transition of a primitive three-toed variety (above) to the one-toed type (top) ten million years ago.”
Of course, Marilyn didn’t write what she posted– apparently it’s been passed around on the internet and accepted at face value. But what a lying piece of scum the creationist author is for distorting this article!
September 19th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
is this movie part of the wedge strategy? seriously give it up, ID has no place in science, there is no debate over evolution anymore.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Most major universities and institutions support the elitist goal of creating heavily credentialed worker bees who cannot think for themselves and who worship at the altar of materialistic evolution. Since these well-programmed Darwiniacs have been trained to reject all aspects of reality other than the material, they militate against the things that matter most—non-material realities such as truth, goodness, justice, purpose, and yes, design.
Thus, there are no minds, only brains; no free agency, only determined behavior; no personal growth, only a pre-packaged life style filled with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Predictably, they regard any inference to non-material realities as a threat to their nihilistic, soul-destroying world view, even if those inferences are grounded in observational data.
Like good little soldiers, they will persecute and slander all who question the tenets of that religion, those four pillars of faith—chance, time, random mutation, and natural selection. For them, there can be no abstract realities such as justice and fairness because there can be no reality that transcends matter. Thus, there can be no freedom, because political freedom rests on a universal standard of justice that supersedes all institutional powers, including the power of the state.
This battle, then, is not just about intellectual freedom, it is about freedom, period. To promote, support, and defend intelligent design is to undermine the intellectual slave traders and reintroduce the concept of a purpose-driven, self-directed life. If I am not permitted to say that the design that appears in nature is real, then neither am I permitted to say that there is any design or purpose to my existence. That means that there cannot be any such thing as a personal destiny or any moral or political right to pursue it.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:30 am
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000370;p=63
I recommend the above current page as testimony to the depths to which DaveScot/David Springer must descend in order to discredit me. In so doing he has exposed only himself. Just think, this man is William Dembski’s personally appointed blog czar.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 20th, 2007 at 7:23 am
If we are fortunate enough for “Expelled” to be successful enough to merit a follow-up, I think it should examine in greater detail how and why the “Fortress of Darwin” came into being. I’d like to learn more about why about the history behind why the Darwinists attack independent thinkers with such aggression and arrogance, why they refuse to tolerate debate or doubt about what they believe, and ultimately how and why Darwinism went from scientific theory to unquestionable orthodoxy. Producers, are you listening…?
September 20th, 2007 at 8:46 am
· Rhology Says:
“The questions were all challenges with one exception, a guy who (rightly, and unpopularly) questioned the open-mindedness of the majority of the students present. His question was met with jeers and a “Shut up!” from the middle of the auditorium. Exactly.”
Interesting … and some will say this never happens. Gee, one has to wonder how much open-mindedness is allowed among students. It seems everyone should stay within that box of Darwinism and never look for any other information outside that box. Any questions or other information outside that box lead to “that’s a lie” “you’re a liar” or “irrelevant”. So, it seems, this concludes, all those that question Darwinism are just plain stupid or ignorant. Does this make the Darwinists superior because they are survival of the fittest? Only the strong survive? Were they naturally selected to be the only ones allowed to speak?
Some places won’t allow the reading of Origin of Species. Because of it’s theology.
You may listen here: http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/03/where_does_darwins_argument_fr.html
Hi Beaglelady, my apologies, thought I had left a link for that info. Here is the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n4/horse
There are many scientists who have turned their back on Darwinism, and many who question it, but say nothing. Why? Because they will be escorted away. And please do not say “prove it” or proof please”. Do your own homework.
~M
September 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Of interest here:
Baylor University administration silencing science by design Sept. 18, 2007
Published in the Baylor Newspaper Waco, Texas 76798 1-800-BAYLOR-U
It may sound like a crazy question, but it needs to be asked: Does the administration at Baylor believe in God?
This is a legitimate question in light of the university’s heavy-handed actions in shutting down the research Web site of Dr. Robert Marks.
As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman’s terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.
At Baylor, a Christian institution, this should be pretty unremarkable stuff. I’m assuming most of the faculty, students and alumni believe in God, so wouldn’t it also be safe to assume you have no problem with a professor trying to scientifically quantify the limits of a blind, undirected cause of the origin and subsequent history of life?
It would seem this kind of research would be praised and encouraged at Baylor.
But the dirty little secret is university administrators are much more fearful of the Darwinian Machine than they are of you.
I’ve spent the last two years of my life researching the widely accepted Neo-Darwinian theory and the theory of Intelligent Design.
My team and I (including lawyer, economist, actor, game show host and social commentator Ben Stein) have interviewed dozens of the world’s top experts in biology, astronomy, physics and philosophy.
What we have uncovered in our documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, is an attack on freedom of speech and scientific inquiry that is as frightening as it is appalling. And it’s happening right here at Baylor.
Last month Dr. Ben Kelley, dean of engineering and computer science, shut down Marks’ Web site. He apparently had the blessing of President John Lilley. Why? The university put forth a bunch of phony-baloney procedural explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
The truth however, can be found in an e-mail sent to Marks by Ben Kelley in which he told Marks, “I have received several concerned messages…” about his Web site. These complaints have been kept anonymous. How convenient.
Here’s what’s going on: Somebody within the scientific community let Kelley know that Marks was running a Web site that was friendly to Intelligent Design.
Such a thing is completely unacceptable in today’s university system even at a Christian institution. Kelley was probably told to have the site shut down immediately or suffer the consequences.
What are those consequences? The ultimate penalty is to have Baylor marginalized by being designated as not a “legitimate institution of higher learning.” So designated merely for the “crime” of allowing Neo-Darwinism to be questioned, since conventional elitist wisdom holds it’s no longer a theory but an inviolable truth.
Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more.
We want to speak with President Lilley about this academic suppression, so we are going to give him one more chance. Mr. Stein is sending a crew down to knock on President Lilley’s door Thursday, September 20.
Will he talk? We hope so. But even if he doesn’t, the actions of the Baylor administration will be in our film.
Walt Ruloff
Executive producer, Premise Media
September 20th, 2007 at 9:44 am
I am wondering, if Ben has responded to his critics here on the boards? I am also further wondering, given Ben’s knowledge of economics and the importance of competition therein, if he is not aware also of the importance of competition in science. Scientists compete to prove each other wrong, but to make a name for their selves and to get grant money, they do have to publish their results, subjecting themselves to competition among their colleagues. It’s most likely then that science will have a damned (though not perfect) good track record of keeping honest. I could have holes in my understanding here, but otherwise, it’s that simple.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Hello Beaglelady,
I was going to do that myself, go to my library, but I hadn’t had a chance. Just done a show, and now working on orders. So, I did provide the link.
Off to do a fitting for a 4lb. chihuahua. May stop at the library as well.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 am
The bottom line for all of us is a question…
“Is physical observation capable of deducing the origin of all the information in the universe?”
Science generally speaking today has assumed to write into its definition that; information observed in the universe is only the product of random chance and fortuitous selection as a product of chance laws. This, if absolutely true, would rule out the presence of an intelligent creator. But is it true? Note I included the words ‘only, ‘random’, ‘fortuitous’ and ‘chance’. This is stacking the deck before the hand is dealt!
Lets be honest! Those on the non-theistic side of the fence wish to prove that all information in the world can be explained by reference to lucky randomness. Those who believe in the possibility of supernatural intelligence have a range of views (not well understood by those who like to ’straw-man’ (verb) religion), ultimately referring to a non-physical source of at least some and in some form ultimately all information.
It is not at all rational to exclude from all deduction (or ‘expel’ all references to) an intelligent source of information without proper investigation. Nor I agree is it entirely rational to be able to supply physical proof of a non-physical source of information because you can always appeal to ignorance rather than intelligence. What seems to be happening here is the proverbial schoolyard shouting match of “Oh yes it is designed!” and “Oh no it isn’t designed!”. How amusing it is when some appeal that ‘an intelligent designer is unscientific’, then ask for scientific proof of the intelligent designer before you have the right to appeal to the designer in science. Thats like asking for the colour of something that is colourless!! An utterly juvenile and rediculous appeal! There is also an interesting set of arguments here asking what caused something non-physical and by many definitions uncaused to exist. Utterly small minded, irrational and honestly the kind of thing I would expect from the 7th grade students and recent ‘fundamentalist atheist’ scriptures. If that is all the argument you have against ID you are going to lose the fight for the mind of anyone with half a brain
Bottom line, let the ID guys propose and let the evolutionists fight the problems they pick up rather than exclude the ID guys from science all together which is ultimately censorship even if you think it is ‘right’ censorship. Think of it this way. If the ID scientists want to point out the ‘gaps’ in evolution theory they are doing evolution a favour by supplying areas of future research by those convinced the theory is true. Let them conclude what they want to conclude; it is not exactly going to stop evolution research right now is it, I mean come on!
Ultimately if someone suppresses challenges to a theory on the basis that it is ‘not scientific’, it is only to reveal your philosophical position on ‘what is science?’ In the case of ruling out all intelligent causes of information before observation you are basically saying that “An intelligent cause cannot be part of science”… you are “putting science in a box where it cannot possibly touch God.” You are doing exactly what Mr Stein accuses you of. The more you scream that ‘appealing to intelligence as a source of observed information is unscientific’, the more you identify yourself with and provide support to what seems to be the main point of this film.
Appealing to authority of evidence will not help you in this case as it ultimately did not stop the likes of Galileo either (which I think is the reason for referring to him), the film does seem more about making a philosophical point and raising a good and honest question of neutrality to the establishment, then making a scientific proof. But then, there is more in the world than scientific proof or is there? Again the answer to that question is not exactly scientific is it!
The sooner materialist science sees this, the better off the world will be, because we can all then get our philosophical bias on the table and get on with collecting observations and debating the conclusions!
Go for it Ben, I look forward to seeing a bit more about this fascinating period in the history of science!
September 20th, 2007 at 11:01 am
ha! unfortunately, my library only goes back a year w/ Nat Geo mags.
Have a wonderful day all!
September 20th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“Any questions or other information outside that box lead to “that’s a lie” “you’re a liar” or “irrelevant”.”
Maybe if you actually paid attention you would see that claims of “liar” are used when people make demonstratably false statements, and that claims of irrelevance are used when people make statements that are completely unrelated to the theory of evolution when attempting to argue against the theory.
The fact is that anti-evolution posters make false claims. Whining because people who tell lies are called out on their lies will not make false claims suddenly become true. Complaining because I rightly call someone who says “The foundational assumption of evolutionary theory and of its underpinning philosophical framework–humanism–is that God doesn’t exist and thus didn’t create.” is not a valid means of showing that my accusation is false. Someone who claims that the theory of evolution carries with it an assumption that “God doesn’t exist” is *lying*. What am I supposed to do, pretend that their dishonest representation of the theory is actually true and try to argue for a claim that no one actually makes?
When someone challenges the theory of evolution by saying ” No OOZEPOOL was responsible for starting anything, and the BIG BANG will someday go ‘poof’ and disappear.”, they are introducing two concepts — abiogenesis and the big bang — that are not a part of the theory of evolution. Why, then, is it not justifiable for me to point out that their statement has no relevance to the theory of evolution?
Your objections are irrational. Rather than show that you have a valid argument or show that my rebuttals are factually incorrect, you attack me because I respond to false claims by rightly pointing them out as lies and I respond to irrelevance by pointing it out as irrelevant.
I am not attacking people for “thinking outside of the Darwinist box”. I am rightly calling people out on dishonesty because they are thinking outside of the honesty box. They are making claims that are demonstratably false, or they are making claims that are simply not relevant when addressing the theory of evolution. Your whining about that isn’t going to make the lies of anti-evolutionists become truths and it won’t suddenly make tangential or even wholly unrelated fields of study suddenly become a part of the theory of evolution.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
““It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising throught the world, every variation, even the slightest,rejecting…the bad,…adding up all that is good…the improvement of each of each organic being”
How is this not evoking an onmipotent, omniscient, omnipresent power to explain his theory. Darwinists Please Explain!”
Look up the word “metaphor” in the dictionary, then consider how that word might apply to the sentence that you quoted.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Debate is needed but Darwinists are saying that no debate will occur.”
Gee, that’s interesting, considering that debates have occured.
The fact is that ID pushers have no real science. The only real “claim” that it has to offer is an appeal to incredulity, the basis of which has already been falsified. Whining about “academic freedom” won’t change the fact that ID “research” has not produced any meaningful reseults.
Attacking the theory of evolution will not show that ID is correct. ID needs positive evidence in order to have any merit, and right now it doesn’t even have a stated mechanism. An explanation without an actual mechanism is not an explanation at all, it is pure speculation and baseless conjecture.
If you disagree, then please state the known extant design “mechanism” used in the alleged Intelligent Design process.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“As many of you have heard, Marks, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering, has been conducting research that ultimately may challenge the foundation of Darwinian theory. In layman’s terms, Marks is using highly sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques to determine if there are limits to what natural selection can do.”
So what are Marks’s credentials in the field of biology? After all, he has to know quite a bit about biology for any conclusions drawn from his “sophisticated mathematical and computational techniques” to have any validity.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
There are a lot of cranks on the internet, Ben. Don’t let the bastards get you down.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Ben, it truly saddens me that you would choose to associate yourself with this kind of production.
Your premise is absurd. Intelligent Design is not science, therefore it does not belong in a science curriculum. That is the end of the argument.
Let me give you some more examples:
Christianity = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Buddhism = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Judaism = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Muslism = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Painting = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Sculpting = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Music = not science = not in the science curriculum.
Do you see what I’m getting at here. These things are not bad, they just aren’t science so they should not be taught in science classrooms.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
–Do you think this is some kind of fanciful conspiracy theory? Google the names of Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Dean Kenyon and Bill Dembski and see what you find. These distinguished scientists have suffered severe consequences for questioning Darwinian theory and there are hundreds, if not thousands, more. –
Naw, it isn’t even a competent conspiracy theory.
I’m waiting for Ruloff and Stein to put out the film about how Holocaust deniers are suppressed and persecuted, along with JAD, homeopathy, geocentrists, and believers in UFO abductions. Do you suppose that it is wrong for academia ever to prefer a well-substantiated position over one that is seriously lacking in substance, Ruloff? How is keeping pseudoscientists from teaching religiously-based nonsense any worse than the fact that I don’t get to be the preacher of a church?
Is MOND suppressed just because string theory has a much stronger position in academia? Is Wicca persecuted by academia because the latter explains the motions of the heavens through physics instead of the wills of the gods? Is religious persecution behind modern critiques of medieval metaphysics? And is it even suppression at all in the general sense to tell a guy to quit pretending that Baylor has an “ID informatics lab” when it doesn’t?
Of course the only real complaint these whiners have is that science and the rest of academia are doing what they’re supposed to do, eliminating “hypotheses” that don’t work, while teaching and using the ones that do work. ID has been answered (despite its not having anything in its favor from the beginning), something that Ben Stein, Kevin Miller, and Ruloff don’t discuss, and no reasonable responses have been forthcoming from these guys.
ID has been considered by academics much better than many genuine scientific hypotheses have been, for the obvious reason, that ID has political clout. Indeed, ID has to some extent distorted science already, by taking attention away from concepts that follow the scientific method, and diverting time and resources with cheesy arguments and attempts to change science into something that accommodates unevidenced magic. Thus ID has managed to suppress science, while ID has open to it all of the venues that it belongs in, including the internet and the churches.
The complaint, in other words, is that science comes to the conclusions expected of it, eventually discarding whatever does not comport with scientific practices and evidence. Their problem is that science works, and it passes judgment upon pseudosciences like ID.
Indeed, one should not forget that “the father of Intelligent Design” denied that HIV causes AIDS, no matter how abundantly the evidence indicates otherwise. And of course HIV denial is frowned upon in the universities, even though HIV denial doesn’t even exist as a Wedge for religion. How much more ought we to oppose ID in the centers of learning than even HIV denial, considering that ID not only is completely fallacious as science, but exists expressly in order to oppose the highly successful methods of science?
I do thank Ruloff for so completely exposing the religious nature of ID, however. To be sure, it was evident to anyone who can think, but then Phillip Johnson explicitly stated it in the Wedge document. Yet this whole complaint that we’re “suppressing” a “science” because it is in fact religious, is helpful to those of us who wish to maintain the First Amendment and freedom–at least it is in the legal realm.
Believe me, a Holocaust denier would be much less welcome to Baylor than an IDist is. And Ruloff doesn’t raise a single objection to shunting out those egregious malingerers. Why should he? We have evidence that the Holocaust happened, and the deniers have no evidence that it did not. Likewise, we have evidence that evolution happened according to mostly known non-teleological processes, and IDists have no evidence for the teleological processes that they claim were involved (which they claim even though they deny that we should look for evidence for teleology in organisms). But supposedly we’re suppressing the one, while Ruloff et al. don’t care that we’re “suppressing” the other one, and indeed, should complain if we didn’t do so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 20th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I should clarify my last post. The “father of Intelligent Design” and HIV denier to whom I was referring is Phillip Johnson. Is it at all surprising that Johnson has advocated more than one pseudoscience, not just ID?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
#1357, Tina “How is this not evoking an onmipotent, omniscient, omnipresent power to explain his theory. Darwinists Please Explain!”
Mr. Darwin was speaking ’statistically’.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
There is no need to challenge Darwinism. There is absolutely nothing in any of it that ever had anything to do with the origin of species or of any other taxonomic category. All that has ever been demonstrated through selection, natural or artificial, is the production of intraspecific varieties. None of these even exceed the species barrier let alone genus, family, order, or any other taxonomic category. All evolution was instantaneous, unambiguous and irreversible. Both natural selection and sexual reproduction are anti-evolutionary, serving only to stabilize the species as long as possible, leading, with very few exceptions, to ultimate extinction as the fossil record so dramatically demonstrates. In the distant past new and more advanced life forms were being produced as the old ones disappeared. That is no longer the case. There has not been even a new genus in 2 mlllion years and not a new verifiable species in the written historical era. All we see today is mass extinction without any replacement whatsoever, an extinction which is rapidly accelerating with man’s willful destruction of his habitat.
What does one think my signature means? Can some think I am kidding? Let me assure all that I am not. Neither were Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“Science generally speaking today has assumed to write into its definition that; information observed in the universe is only the product of random chance and fortuitous selection as a product of chance laws.”
You are incorrect. Science “assumes” only that the fundamental properties of the universe do not change over time. They do not assume “random chance”; in fact science relies upon the universe not being random in its workings.
“This, if absolutely true, would rule out the presence of an intelligent creator.”
However, your asessment is false. Science does not operate under the assumptions that you claim.
“But is it true?”
No; your previous assertion is false.
“Note I included the words ‘only, ‘random’, ‘fortuitous’ and ‘chance’. This is stacking the deck before the hand is dealt!”
You are correct. That you acknowledge this leads me to wonder why you would make a claim that is demonstratably false.
“Lets be honest! Those on the non-theistic side of the fence wish to prove that all information in the world can be explained by reference to lucky randomness.”
This is false.
“Those who believe in the possibility of supernatural intelligence have a range of views (not well understood by those who like to ’straw-man’ (verb) religion), ultimately referring to a non-physical source of at least some and in some form ultimately all information.”
This is not relevant.
“It is not at all rational to exclude from all deduction (or ‘expel’ all references to) an intelligent source of information without proper investigation.”
You are now suggesting a course of action that is the antithesis of scientific inquiry. Proper scientific investigation can only occur for claims for which evidence exists. It does not examine all possible avenues of explanation, it instead only examines explanations that are based upon extant, observed phenomenon.
It is not reasonable to expect science to work to rule out all possible explanations; there are an infinite number of possible explanations for any given event; to suggest that even those explanations for which no supporting evidence exists should be investigated before they are discarded is irrational and unreasonable.
“Nor I agree is it entirely rational to be able to supply physical proof of a non-physical source of information because you can always appeal to ignorance rather than intelligence.”
I do not understand the point that you are attempting to make here. Please clarify.
“What seems to be happening here is the proverbial schoolyard shouting match of “Oh yes it is designed!” and “Oh no it isn’t designed!”.”
It would appear that you have not actually been observing the events. “Design” is not an issue amongst mainstream biologists. What has happened is that a minority of individuals — nearly all, if not all, of whom are motivated by religion rather than actual observation — are attempting to elevate baseless speculation that does not even incorporate a specified known extant mechanism to the level of scientific theory and to have their speculation endorsed by the United States government by way of inclusion in government-funded schools as an explanation equivalent to scientific explanations for which actual evidence exists, for which there exists a significant consensus and that which incorporate an actual specified mechanism.
“How amusing it is when some appeal that ‘an intelligent designer is unscientific’, then ask for scientific proof of the intelligent designer before you have the right to appeal to the designer in science.”
If there exists no means for which evidence can be supplied for a claim, then the claim is unscientific by definition.
“Thats like asking for the colour of something that is colourless!! An utterly juvenile and rediculous appeal!”
You have yet to demonstrate that there can exist no observable evidence for an “intellgient designer”. Until you can do this, you cannot claim to have formulated a valid analogy.
“There is also an interesting set of arguments here asking what caused something non-physical and by many definitions uncaused to exist. Utterly small minded, irrational and honestly the kind of thing I would expect from the 7th grade students and recent ‘fundamentalist atheist’ scriptures.”
Insulting those who ask for evidence is not logically equivalent to supplying evidence. If you admit that a conjecture cannot be supported by evidence, then the conjecture cannot be labeled scientific.
“If that is all the argument you have against ID you are going to lose the fight for the mind of anyone with half a brain”
You have already stated a case against ID being science by stating that the “designer” cannot be detected in any meaningful way.
“Bottom line, let the ID guys propose and let the evolutionists fight the problems they pick up rather than exclude the ID guys from science all together which is ultimately censorship even if you think it is ‘right’ censorship.”
No one is excluding “ID”. If an ID proponent can formulate an argument that is actually scientific, it will be examined. Thus far, however, no one has been able to present a coherent explanation of “Intelligent Design” that satisfies the requirements of the scientific method. It is not censorship to note that a not-scientific claim is not scientific.
“Think of it this way. If the ID scientists want to point out the ‘gaps’ in evolution theory they are doing evolution a favour by supplying areas of future research by those convinced the theory is true.”
The problem with your reasoning is that no “ID scientist” has actually identified a “gap” in the theory of evolution.
Moreover, such identification — were it to occur — would not strengthen the claim of Intelligent Design, nor would it make claims of Intelligent Design scientific.
“Let them conclude what they want to conclude; it is not exactly going to stop evolution research right now is it, I mean come on!”
No one is stopping research into the theory of evolution, however it is frustrating to see individuals with a demonstratably religious agenda attempt to falsely claim that a non-scientific conjecture is equal in merit to a scientific theory, especially when they go so far as to attempt to redefine “science”.
“Ultimately if someone suppresses challenges to a theory on the basis that it is ‘not scientific’, it is only to reveal your philosophical position on ‘what is science?’”
The scientific method is well-defined. Attempting to suggest that the question of “what is science?” is a philosophical question suggests that you have not actually studied the scientific method.
“In the case of ruling out all intelligent causes of information before observation you are basically saying that “An intelligent cause cannot be part of science”… you are “putting science in a box where it cannot possibly touch God.””
Such a “ruling out” is not scientific, however that is not what is occuring. What is occuring is that, thus far, no positive evidence exists for “an intelligent cause”. As such, “an intelligent cause” cannot be scientifically concluded.
Not concluding “an intelligent cause” due to lack of evidence — which is the case — is not logically equivalent to “ruling out an intelligent cause”.
“You are doing exactly what Mr Stein accuses you of.”
You are arguing strawmen, thus your conclusion is invalid.
“The more you scream that ‘appealing to intelligence as a source of observed information is unscientific’, the more you identify yourself with and provide support to what seems to be the main point of this film. ”
Your arguments are incoherent and founded upon demonstratably mistaken claims.
Appealing to authority of evidence will not help you in this case as it ultimately did not stop the likes of Galileo either (which I think is the reason for referring to him), the film does seem more about making a philosophical point and raising a good and honest question of neutrality to the establishment, then making a scientific proof. But then, there is more in the world than scientific proof or is there? Again the answer to that question is not exactly scientific is it!
The sooner materialist science sees this, the better off the world will be, because we can all then get our philosophical bias on the table and get on with collecting observations and debating the conclusions!
Go for it Ben, I look forward to seeing a bit more about this fascinating period in the history of science!”
September 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Ben, all I can say is “Yes!!!”
I am amazed at the opposition to Creation by God. What on earth has changed that we now dismiss any notion of a Creator who created us and everything else?
If you frequent the website Digg you’ll see plenty of videos under “video” (duh) that are with Richard Dawkins. Anyone that dares to suggest Dawkins may be wrong are treated as “religious lunatics”. Amazing. Sadly, Dawkins is poisoning the minds of too many students with his “intellect” that seems to, incredibly, dismiss any challenge to him as “nuts”.
I remember Carl Sagan on Larry King one night years ago being interviewed by Ted Turner when talk of God came up. Both men smirked and Sagan stated that “of course there’s no evidence of God”. I thought “here’s a guy fascinated by the ‘billions and billions’ of stars and galaxies and he sees no evidence of a Creator? Unfortunately, Sagan now knows the Truth but, it’s too late for him.
The Bible says that in the end times there will be a “great apostasy” and I see the dismissal of Creationism as the spear point to that. It’s happening now. Christians are mocked and ridiculed by the torch carriers of “tolerance and diversity” that fail to see the hypocrisy of their stance.
Can’t wait to see this Ben. You’ve touched on something that my wife and I have been talking about for years. I have a few stories of my own to tell (as well as the video) of school board meetings where school board members expressed an irrational fear of anything that touches on Creationism. I’m talking nice little old ladies too. What has happened to mankind that it wold be so haughty to suggest that they themselves have “evolved” into what they are with no help from a Creator?
Amazing and sad.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Ben: I entirely agree that the film you are working on addresses a serious problem, and I very much appreciate your willingness to do this. The idea that “life came from chemicals” is so prevalent (in EVERY high school biology text, for example) that I think many would be stunned to learn how weak the “evidence” is for it. On close inspection, the whole idea is little more than wishful thinking! And I am in a position to know (professor of organic chemistry). But despite the severe lack of evidence, those who don’t go along are considered as “unbelievers” among the “real scientists”. This emperor really has no clothes, but woe to him/her who points that out. Clearly, the materialists’ worldview is threatened, hence the religious fervor of those who hate alternative explanations. They seem incapable of realizing that faith in science is still faith (not science)! Hang in there and keep up the good work.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
The irrational, hate-filled, illogical, polemical posts against Mr. Stein are prima facia evidence of the true believer mentality of Darwinist advocates. There is no tolerance, rather hostility, toward any opposing view in science and philosophy from this population of megalomaniacs.
The record of course is that the design inference has been supported by major scientists and philosophical thinkers since antiquity..for those having made a serious investigation into the history of science.
Einstein’s God was not the God of the bible, not a personal god , but assuredly a real entity of mind and responsible for the universe as we comprehend it and everything in it.
For the record there were never more than three historical scientists who promoted a flat earth and they were minor (their works never even put in to latin). The recent flat earth crap started in a Washington Irving piece and was carried out by idiots who couldn’t distinguish humour from reality.
People from 300 years BC forward in Sumaria, Egypt, Greece, Rome and elsewhere knew the earth was spherical from lunar eclipse observations and nuerous other exercises as well as simple observations by sea-going merchants.
I predict this movie will gross 250 million worldwide within one year of release. Rremember the Passion was predicted by the pagan hordes as destined for failure.
Interested parties might examine the DI website and review the some 700 signatories to the ID statement. Then they will discover just who these ignorant, unpublished, fundamentalist, moranic, ill-informed pseudo-scientists are. LOL!!!
One I know personally is a tenured Phd Physicist who serves on the review committee for the CERN accelerator project and detector project. I think he has roughly 50-60 peer reviewed research publications.
The problem for the pagan hordes is that the search for truth inevitably wins. The supression of truth always loses.
But don’t worry your grant money will be safe thanks to Eugenie Scott and her tribe,
Keaton
September 20th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
StephenB said: “they militate against the things that matter most—non-material realities such as truth, goodness, justice”
Come on now. Please find me any “Darwiniac” who will complain about any of these.
“Thus, there can be no freedom, because political freedom rests on a universal standard of justice that supersedes all institutional powers, including the power of the state.”
Now you’re just being silly.
“If I am not permitted to say that the design that appears in nature is real, then neither am I permitted to say that there is any design or purpose to my existence.”
But you are permitted to say so. You can publish a book about it, and many have. You just can’t say it in a science class until you can produce some evidence that backs you up.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
An excellent article for all science worshipers (in my field we know we make mistakes and are imperfect, in contrast to Darwin Fundamentalists. We have recalled over a dozen drugs in the past few years alone) I wish Darwinists were so humble. The fact is, we have a lot to learn.
Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis By Robert Lee Hotz
September 14, 2007; Page B1 Wall Street Journal
We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong.
Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye.
These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. “There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims,” Dr. Ioannidis said. “A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true.”
The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.
Take the discovery that the risk of disease may vary between men and women, depending on their genes. Studies have prominently reported such sex differences for hypertension, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis, as well as lung cancer and heart attacks. In research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes.
Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated.
Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. “People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual,” Dr. Ioannidis said.
In the U. S., research is a $55-billion-a-year enterprise that stakes its credibility on the reliability of evidence and the work of Dr. Ioannidis strikes a raw nerve. In fact, his 2005 essay “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” remains the most downloaded technical paper that the journal PLoS Medicine has ever published.
“He has done systematic looks at the published literature and empirically shown us what we know deep inside our hearts,” said Muin Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We need to pay more attention to the replication of published scientific results.”
Every new fact discovered through experiment represents a foothold in the unknown. In a wilderness of knowledge, it can be difficult to distinguish error from fraud, sloppiness from deception, eagerness from greed or, increasingly, scientific conviction from partisan passion. As scientific findings become fodder for political policy wars over matters from stem-cell research to global warming, even trivial errors and corrections can have larger consequences.
Still, other researchers warn not to fear all mistakes. Error is as much a part of science as discovery. It is the inevitable byproduct of a search for truth that must proceed by trial and error. “Where you have new areas of knowledge developing, then the science is going to be disputed, subject to errors arising from inadequate data or the failure to recognize new matters,” said Yale University science historian Daniel Kevles. Conflicting data and differences of interpretation are common.
To root out mistakes, scientists rely on each other to be vigilant. Even so, findings too rarely are checked by others or independently replicated. Retractions, while more common, are still relatively infrequent. Findings that have been refuted can linger in the scientific literature for years to be cited unwittingly by other researchers, compounding the errors.
Stung by frauds in physics, biology and medicine, research journals recently adopted more stringent safeguards to protect at least against deliberate fabrication of data. But it is hard to admit even honest error. Last month, the Chinese government proposed a new law to allow its scientists to admit failures without penalty. Next week, the first world conference on research integrity convenes in Lisbon.
Overall, technical reviewers are hard-pressed to detect every anomaly. On average, researchers submit about 12,000 papers annually just to the weekly peer-reviewed journal Science. Last year, four papers in Science were retracted. A dozen others were corrected.
No one actually knows how many incorrect research reports remain unchallenged.
Earlier this year, informatics expert Murat Cokol and his colleagues at Columbia University sorted through 9.4 million research papers at the U.S. National Library of Medicine published from 1950 through 2004 in 4,000 journals. By raw count, just 596 had been formally retracted, Dr. Cokol reported.
“The correction isn’t the ultimate truth either,” Prof. Kevles said.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
In reply to Glen’s claim: “The “father of Intelligent Design” and HIV denier to whom I was referring is Phillip Johnson. Is it at all surprising that Johnson has advocated more than one pseudoscience, not just ID?”
It is hard for me to understand how educated persons could be so misinformed and resort to character assassination such as this. Se the above post.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Coffeeholic said: “How amusing it is when some appeal that ‘an intelligent designer is unscientific’, then ask for scientific proof of the intelligent designer before you have the right to appeal to the designer in science.”
Well, no it’s not amusing, it’s how science works I’m not sure what you expect. If you want to appeal to the designer, you need to present some evidence that something was actually designed. If you don’t require some evidence, then any explanation you can come up with for a phenomenon is just as valid as any other. Without evidence, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?
“Thats like asking for the colour of something that is colourless!!”
No, it’s like asking for some way to detect the presence of the colorless object. Does it give off heat? Does it have an odor? How much mass does it have? Will it react with hydrochloric acid? Etc.
“There is also an interesting set of arguments here asking what caused something non-physical and by many definitions uncaused to exist.”
So what IS the designer? We keep getting people saying that it’s not God, but now you tell me it’s an un-caused, non-physical entity.
“Ultimately if someone suppresses challenges to a theory on the basis that it is ‘not scientific’”
You cannot challenge a scientific theory with an unscientific approach.
“you are “putting science in a box where it cannot possibly touch God.””
God, is a supernatural entity, and thus *by definition* cannot be touched by science.
“Appealing to authority of evidence will not help you in this case as it ultimately did not stop the likes of Galileo either”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I look forward to seeing the film.
It must be hitting a nerve in the believers of naturalistic evolution. Could it be fear that people will hear more than just arguments for evolution? I love the ad hominem attacks and elephant hurling.
I guess it’s not enough that evolutionists have the ACLU writing up court decisions against intelligent design and criticisms of evolution dogma; they want absolute power.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
If anything, the reason why Intelligent design hasn’t had much time to put together such a large body of scientific conclusions as the naturalist evolution (Darwinist) group is that it hasn’t had the 130 year head start that Darwinism has had. For years, it’s been squashed between the closed-minded thinking of its fat older brothers, Darwinism and Young-Earth Creationism (based on an unwarranted literal interpretation of Genesis 1, which is a poetic work that is more important for its meaning than as a literal scientific reference). The problem is that even in today’s more open-minded society, Intelligent design is still suppressed. It’s easy to see the role that peer pressure can play in an establishment in which findings published in journals must be peer-reviewed by peers that likely have a naturalist agenda.
In order to live up to the standard which the rest of the scientific establishment (predominantly if not exclusively Darwinist) has set for it, ID has an enormous burden of proof to shoulder. But the truth is that the other scientific camp, Darwinism, has itself been unfaithful to the ideals of science when it has introduced naturalistic philosophical assumptions into the conclusions it reaches when attempting to read meaning that just isn’t there into the body of evidence it is trying to interpret. Intelligent design is often challenged to show evidence for its claims, yet the body of evidence on which ID rests is one and the same with the body of evidence on which Darwinism rests - the conclusions are different because the interpretation of the data is different. What we’re really looking at here is the ‘outing’ of the philosophical assumptions on which Darwinism is based, and a growing group of scientists who aren’t afraid to voice their own differing interpretation of the facts, an interpretation which we know as Intelligent Design.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
It is interesting to note that what at first appeared to be a scientifically enlightened view of Reality, Evolution, is now and has been crumbling under the weight of good Scientific investigation and scrutiny.
We are still crawling out of the rubble of the Enlightenment’s worldview of the Sacred/Secular false dichotomy. After all, “pure” scientists have the only valid platform to gaze at reality from and the I.D.er’s need to crawl back under their steeples and keep their religious views in check safely separated from the “true” Science being done….BullCrappy!!!!
If only Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to flush his “Evolutionary theory” down the toilet and admit that he was wrong. The issue is not about science or religion but about Reality. Those with the freedom to think, question and investigate all of reality will be part of the new Science that may very well produce the next generation of Galileo’s & Einsteins.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
M. Schulte (1376): “Your premise is absurd. Intelligent Design is not science, therefore it does not belong in a science curriculum. That is the end of the argument.”
Oh, believe me - it’s only the beginning. An argument for teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom is a call for fair treatment for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory alongside the theory of Darwinism, which itself is still an unproven theory. Science is a changing field - it should be able to handle a little lively debate.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Dimensio # 1372
Too right it is a metaphor - I look for scientific explanation not figurative speech. What exactly does Darwins’ metaphor actually explain? To say something is “like” something else is not saying what that something else “is”.
Richard Dawkins is the next main offender re metaphor as scientific explanation. Example: What does “selfish gene” do to explain the mechanisms behind one genes survival over another or what does an insect know about “altruism”. This metaphorical language fraught with human value/moral judgements and is not a sound way to describe amoral nature. Ideas of “good and bad” are leading to wrong conclusions - s.a. as Dawkins again in his conclusion that Religion is bad therefore it must be a by-product of something else.
I tell you now Religion has aided HUMAN evolution in that it has proven the most effective means of driving abstract thought. It’s guaranteed to get our neuronal firings operating at optimum speed and generate the conflict that is the driving force behind discovery and invention = TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE = SURVIVAL.
Get real Darwinists science is not a creative writing exercise.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Thank you Dimensio, Glen Davidson and CRasch for injecting some rationality into this discussion.
To those of you who support ID:
- there are many mainstream scientists who are also devoutly religous
- where are the useful, practical scientific advances based on ID that would justify its place in academia?
- are you opposed to professional standards for scientists and science educators? Do you think it is wrong to expect scientists to insist that new ideas be supported by data, and to expect science educators to teach only what is accepted and used by working scientists?
- fairness does not mean giving all ideas equal time in the classroom.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Correction re;post 1380 last sentence in first paragraph should read “To say “something” is “like” something else is not saying what that “something” “is”.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
No one will deny that there is, and has been, micro evolution going on since the beginning of time, which is minute changes within a species. However, after all that time, an equine is still an equine; a bovine is still a bovine; a canine is still a canine; a feline is still a feline; an ovine is still an ovine; and on and on and on . . . All I have to say is Darwinian evolution is a THEORY, as in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. It is not scientific. It espouses MACRO evolution (one species evolving into another), and that has NEVER BEEN PROVEN! Where is the scientific evidence? Where is the MISSING LINK??? Darwin himself stated that if the missing link isn’t found, his theory falls apart. Well, it has been laying on the floor in a million pieces for many, many years now. It’s just that some people are still stuck in the post. Thank you, Ben, for trying to bring them kicking and screaming into the present.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Webster’s New World Dictionary says that science is a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods by experiments and hypotheses, or simply a systematizing to gain knowledge of nature and the physical world and hypothesizing. Otherwise studying what you can see trying to reveal what you can’t see.
Also, Webster’s New World Dictionary states that a hypothesis is groundwork and foundation for supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts to provide certain basis for further investigation or argument for. Webster’s Dictionary also states that theory is a mental viewing, contemplation, a formulation of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. More popularly known as a mere conjecture, or guess:as, my theory is that he’s lying.
So now we must conclude that science is not exact and is supposed, conjecture, or a guess.
So now we can conclude that even Einstein theories were also conjecture, guess, work and possibly a figment of his imagination.
If it is believed that I am not who I say I am, would you not ask me to reveal myself to you as evidence of my existence?
Then instead of denying the existence of God why not do an experiment? Realize you have to be as open minded as scientists should be in order to gather facts or knowledge of things that exist.
Rather than argument I propose this. Forget about the movie and all of Ben Stein’s comments plus any others you have heard, and what professors have said or have not said, and what you believe or do not believe. Also, forget everything about Jesus, called God in the flesh, that you have heard.
Then ask God who is the one in question, sincerely without sarcasm, if He would reveal Himself to you. Talk to Him saying if you really exist reveal yourself to me. Continue this search as dedicatedly as you would any long term scientific project and see if in some way He would make Himself know to you.
In all sincerity,
Jean S.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Thanks to Coffeeholic for a rational, reasonable assessment of the situation. Neither hypothesis will ever be able to answer the other until there is an honest, and simultaneously, skeptical discourse of each.
And for the record, I believe that neither ID nor evolution have yet passed the test of scientific credibility.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Wow! This blog proves the very point that unless you are in lock step with the Humanists you are ridiculed and assassinated through ad hoc arguments and beat down by the delphi method. Just like Islam, Evolution will no and cannot tolerate any compeating ideas, and will defend itself by any and all means possible. This from the disciplines that have given us the Piltdown man, the Nebraska man and Lucy. What if, as recent research has suggested, c is not the constant it has been made out to be? What if the speed of light (c) is different than what science has accepted it to be? What will science do?
Why is it that the religion of science can have physical absolutes, mathmatical absolutes, chemical absolutes and absolutes concerning time and space, but when we talk about moral absolutes… such cannot exist?
Anyway, thanks for proving the point that Evolutionists are militant, so-called intellectual elitists who will not tolerate any blasphemy of their doctrine.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
“1373 If you disagree, then please state the known extant design “mechanism” used in the alleged Intelligent Design process.”
What observable mechanism does evolution have to offer? Or what “known” extant design mechanism can evolution theorists produce? Using the scientific method can this mechanism be observed or reproduced? (Not talking about adaptation within a species, but transitional forms between species. Please document.)
My arguement is not for ID here, but I am seeking for someone to explain why Evolution is “science”… and not religion.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:10 am
To deny a past evolution is insane, a “syndrome” with a demonstrable heritable basis. It is just as insane to claim that chance and selction was its mechanism. Neither had anything to do with a sequence of reproductive continuity with change which is all that presently can be established. We as yet have no idea how many times life was created, how many Creators there were, where or when they did the creating or how many times life, once created, was subsequently redirected.
Ontogeny, the development of the individul, remains the best model for phylogeny. Both involved the expression of preformed latent information that was expressed over time in an ordered fashion. Only ontogeny remains as the evolutionary sequence has ended, in my opinion with the appearance of its final, goal directed product - Homo sapiens.
Those who still believe that chance played a role in either ontogeny or phylogeny are intellectually disadvantaged, probably from birth. There is no longer any question that ones belief or not in a Creator has a congenital heritable component. William Wright’s book “Born That Way” summarizes that evidence as his title indicates.
I speak as a convinced determinist and I am not alone.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
As for ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
Furthermore, there is no need to postulate an intervening God, a God which may no longer even exist. Again I am not alone.
“Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
The whole business was planned millions of years ago by one or more entities far beyond our present capacity to even imagine. My preference, and that is all that it is, is toward two Creators, one benevolent, the other malevolent. It makes what we see going on around us, even here on this blog, much easier to understand. This dualism is also intrinsic in the Judeo-Christian ethic, an ethic of great significance in the history of civilization.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution udemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
Online discussions are always hard because there is a complete lack of the 80% body language communication requires.
I would like to ask two questions (which I must stress are not for my own benefit but the readers) in reply to those that have graciously and critically replied to my posting. I do not even wish you to answer on the blog here to be honest, unless you feel the need to prove another point.
The main criticisms to my post (whether you know it or not) are locked into your own definition of how you view the world. So my questions for you to answer are…
“What observation in science would point you towards an intelligent creator?”
If your knee jerk reaction is to say “There is none!”, you have a biased view of science. So to evaluate your view perhaps the second question can help you understand why some people see things differently.
“Is information a property or a product of the universe?”
The answer to this question; if a ‘property’ implies a source beyond the physical, if a ‘product’ implies no source other than the physical. ID seeks to discover information as a property, materialist science seeks to explain information as a product.
Both cannot be right, but neither can be excluded from the debate because all we know for a fact is that information is there!
My suspicion is that those objecting to the idea of an intelligent creator believe information is always a product of nature because they classically ask for what produced ‘God’ and cannot comprehend the reply. This debate harks back to Greek philosophy 500BC… Long live the debate!
September 21st, 2007 at 7:46 am
“Webster’s New World Dictionary says that science is a branch of knowledge or study, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles, and methods by experiments and hypotheses, or simply a systematizing to gain knowledge of nature and the physical world and hypothesizing.”
I normally do not advocate argument by dictionary, but this does not seem to be an inaccurate definition.
“Otherwise studying what you can see trying to reveal what you can’t see.”
This is a very simplified stating, but I cannot fault it.
“Also, Webster’s New World Dictionary states that a hypothesis is groundwork and foundation for supposition, tentatively accepted to explain certain facts to provide certain basis for further investigation or argument for.”
This definition is incomplete, because you are not specifically defining a “scientific” hypothesis, but it is not inaccurate beyond its incompleteness.
“Webster’s Dictionary also states that theory is a mental viewing, contemplation, a formulation of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree.”
This is also correct, if somewhat incomplete.
“More popularly known as a mere conjecture, or guess:as, my theory is that he’s lying.”
In science, this is false. In science, a theory is not “mere conjecture” or a “guess”. “Theory” has multiple definitions, and it is not valid to conflate the definition used in science with a different definition.
An explanation that has been “verified to some degree”, as the definition that you have quoted states is required of a theory (which is true of scientific theories) cannot honestly be called “mere conjecture”.
“So now we must conclude that science is not exact and is supposed, conjecture, or a guess.”
Your conclusion is based upon a false definition and is therefore invalid.
“So now we can conclude that even Einstein theories were also conjecture, guess, work and possibly a figment of his imagination.”
This is also false, resulting from your incorrect definition of “theory”.
“If it is believed that I am not who I say I am, would you not ask me to reveal myself to you as evidence of my existence?”
This does not relate to the discussion.
“Then instead of denying the existence of God why not do an experiment?”
Who is denying the existence of “God”, and what relation does such a denial have to the current discussion? Also explain why you have changed the subject from a discussion of scientific definitions to a discussion of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry and as such cannot be examined or studied by the scientific method.
“Realize you have to be as open minded as scientists should be in order to gather facts or knowledge of things that exist.”
This does not justify your abrupt insertion of an irrelevant non-scientific concept into a scientific discussion.
“Rather than argument I propose this. Forget about the movie and all of Ben Stein’s comments plus any others you have heard, and what professors have said or have not said, and what you believe or do not believe. Also, forget everything about Jesus, called God in the flesh, that you have heard. ”
Why would you assume, after suddenly changing the subject to “God” after discussing science, that anyone to whom you were speaking would have instantly considered the Christian God and not another deity?
“Then ask God who is the one in question, sincerely without sarcasm, if He would reveal Himself to you. Talk to Him saying if you really exist reveal yourself to me. Continue this search as dedicatedly as you would any long term scientific project and see if in some way He would make Himself know to you.”
This is completely irrelevant to the definition or practice of science. It is also an incredibly arrogant supposition; why should the specific deity that you reference be addressed instead of the deity of another religion?
September 21st, 2007 at 7:51 am
“However, after all that time, an equine is still an equine; a bovine is still a bovine; a canine is still a canine; a feline is still a feline; an ovine is still an ovine; and on and on and on . . .”
Please explain the meaning and relevance of your statement.
“All I have to say is Darwinian evolution is a THEORY, as in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.”
This is correct. A “theory” in science is an explanation that has acheived a high degree of confidence amongst scientists studiyng fields relevant to the theory. Evolution has attained this degree of confidence, and as such it has been given the title “theory”, which is the highest level that a scientific explanation can attain.
“It is not scientific.”
You have contradicted yourself. You have acknowledged that evolution is a theory — meaning that it must be scientific — and then you deny that it is scientific.
“It espouses MACRO evolution (one species evolving into another), and that has NEVER BEEN PROVEN!”
Nothing in science is ever proven, however speciation has been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
“Where is the scientific evidence?”
There exists a great deal of scientific evidence. In addition to the fossil record, which appears as has been predicted by derivations of the theory (to the point where scientists were able to predict the geographic location of a fossil that they were seeking), recent analysis of DNA has uncovered patterns of viral insertion fully consistent with established lineages of common descent.
“Where is the MISSING LINK??? Darwin himself stated that if the missing link isn’t found, his theory falls apart.”
You will need to clarify this claim. What, exactly, do you mean by “missing link”?
“Well, it has been laying on the floor in a million pieces for many, many years now. It’s just that some people are still stuck in the post.”
I do not understand the meaning of this statement.
“Thank you, Ben, for trying to bring them kicking and screaming into the present.”
I fail to see how Mr. Stein’s endorsement of a movie that inaccurately claims that professors have been denied tenure as a result of their support for “Intelligent Design” — a conjecture that assumes that evolution has occured — relates to the rest of your posting.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:40 am
“Oh, believe me - it’s only the beginning. An argument for teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom is a call for fair treatment for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory alongside the theory of Darwinism,”
Intelligent Design must first be established as a “theory” before it can be considered as a theory. It is not reasonable to insist that an explanation be treated as a theory in a public school classroom when it has not yet attained the status of theory.
” which itself is still an unproven theory”
All theories in science are unproven. Theories in science are never proven. Your statement is meaningless.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
“If anything, the reason why Intelligent design hasn’t had much time to put together such a large body of scientific conclusions as the naturalist evolution (Darwinist) group is that it hasn’t had the 130 year head start that Darwinism has had.”
There must also exist actual evidence for the claim of “Intelligent Design”. Without evidence, time is irrelevant; a long timespan will not make evidence come to exist of the claim has no merit.
“For years, it’s been squashed between the closed-minded thinking of its fat older brothers, Darwinism and Young-Earth Creationism”
It is not logical to treat the theory of evolution — which has long since moved past “Darwinism” — and young-earth creationism as equivalent concepts.
“The problem is that even in today’s more open-minded society, Intelligent design is still suppressed.”
Intelligent Design is only “supressed” in the same way that other conjectures without supporting evidence are supressed. It is not rational to expect a claim for which no evidence is given to be treated as though it were of equal merit to a coherent scientific explanation for which extensive evidence has been gathered.
“It’s easy to see the role that peer pressure can play in an establishment in which findings published in journals must be peer-reviewed by peers that likely have a naturalist agenda.”
A more important role in peer review is evidence. Thus far, proponents of “Intelligent Design” have presented none.
Your suggestion of a “naturalist agenda” suggests that you do not understand the methodology of science. All of science operates under methodological naturalism. A claim that is not naturalist is, by definition, not scientific.
“In order to live up to the standard which the rest of the scientific establishment (predominantly if not exclusively Darwinist) has set for it, ID has an enormous burden of proof to shoulder.”
Then ID proponents should put forth actual evidence. Thus far, they have not done so.
Your use of the word “Darwinist” suggests that you are unfamiliar with the actual study of the theory of evolution. While Charles Darwin did remarkable work in establishing the groundwork for the theory, the theory has since been significantly expanded since his time. It is not appropriate to refer to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism”.
“But the truth is that the other scientific camp, Darwinism, has itself been unfaithful to the ideals of science when it has introduced naturalistic philosophical assumptions into the conclusions it reaches when attempting to read meaning that just isn’t there into the body of evidence it is trying to interpret.”
Please justify this claim with actual evidence. Please explain why a scientific discipline should not use naturalistic assumptions, given that science cannot address or explain events that are not entirely natural.
“Intelligent design is often challenged to show evidence for its claims, yet the body of evidence on which ID rests is one and the same with the body of evidence on which Darwinism rests - the conclusions are different because the interpretation of the data is different.”
This is a common talking point of Intelligent Design and creationism proponents. This claim is problematic in that it suggests that a rational, logical process can produce different conclusions given the same observations. The only way this is possible is if the universe itself is unpredictable. As the fundamental assumption of science is that the universe is not unpredictable, such a suggestion is antithetical to science.
The scientific method incorporates the process of peer review to act as a filter for conflicting conclusions. Multiple individuals examine conclusions and the justifications for these conclusions.
Thus far the theory of evolution, as a whole, has survived the peer review process intact. What little Intelligent Design has offered — in the form of “irreducible complexit” — has been falsified under scrutiny.
It should also be noted that “Intelligent Design” is not an actual coherent conclusion. The theory of evolution specifies a known, extant mechanism as a means of explaining observations. Intelligent Design suggests a “designer” who has “designed” elements that have been observed, but thus far few if any Intelligent Design proponents have actually attempted to explain the mechanism used to bring about this “design”. Analogies to known design processes have been used, however no proponent that I have seen has actually stated that the “design” mechanism for biological organisms is identical to any known design process used in these analogies.
An assertion that biological structures are “designed” without even an attempt to explain how this “design” was accomplished is not a conclusion; it is incomplete conjecture.
“What we’re really looking at here is the ‘outing’ of the philosophical assumptions on which Darwinism is based,”
To what assumptions do you refer, specifically?
“and a growing group of scientists who aren’t afraid to voice their own differing interpretation of the facts, an interpretation which we know as Intelligent Design.”
Please justify your claim that the quantity of scientists who advocate Intelligent Design is “growing”.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:07 am
“It is interesting to note that what at first appeared to be a scientifically enlightened view of Reality, Evolution, is now and has been crumbling under the weight of good Scientific investigation and scrutiny. ”
This “crumbling” appears to have escaped the notice of the vast majority of biologists in the world. Please support your assertion.
“If only Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to flush his “Evolutionary theory” down the toilet and admit that he was wrong.”
Please support this assertion with evidence.
“The issue is not about science or religion but about Reality. Those with the freedom to think, question and investigate all of reality will be part of the new Science that may very well produce the next generation of Galileo’s & Einsteins.”
Your statements are meaningless if you do not support them with evidence.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:10 am
“It is hard for me to understand how educated persons could be so misinformed and resort to character assassination such as this. Se the above post.”
How, exactly, was the previous comment misinformation? Phillip Johnson does openly state his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pjohnson.htm
September 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
“The irrational, hate-filled, illogical, polemical posts against Mr. Stein are prima facia evidence of the true believer mentality of Darwinist advocates. There is no tolerance, rather hostility, toward any opposing view in science and philosophy from this population of megalomaniacs.”
I note that, like many others, you have made vague, generalized accusations without any specific references or supporting evidence.
“Interested parties might examine the DI website and review the some 700 signatories to the ID statement.
Interested parties may also wish to examine Project Steve, where — as of August 2007 — 822 scientists, two thirds of whom are biologists, have signed their support for the statement “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”
Note that all signatories to the Project Steve list must have the name “Steve” or some variant thereof (including Steven, Stephen, Stephan or Stephanie). It is interesting to note that a list explicitly rejecting Intelligent Design that restricts signatories based upon name and thus is only open to approximately 1% of scietnists currently has more signatories than the Discovery Institute’s name-unrestricted list.
It would appear that the “weight” of DI’s list has been heavily exaggerated, and that it cannot be considered an accurate metric of support for the Intelligent Design movement.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:21 am
“I am amazed at the opposition to Creation by God.”
I believe that you have come to the wrong discussion. The topic of discussion here is evolution versus Intelligent Design. “Creation by God” is not related to the discussion.
“What on earth has changed that we now dismiss any notion of a Creator who created us and everything else?”
That is not relevant to the current discussion.
“If you frequent the website Digg you’ll see plenty of videos under “video” (duh) that are with Richard Dawkins. Anyone that dares to suggest Dawkins may be wrong are treated as “religious lunatics”.” Amazing. Sadly, Dawkins is poisoning the minds of too many students with his “intellect” that seems to, incredibly, dismiss any challenge to him as “nuts”.
I remember Carl Sagan on Larry King one night years ago being interviewed by Ted Turner when talk of God came up. Both men smirked and Sagan stated that “of course there’s no evidence of God”. I thought “here’s a guy fascinated by the ‘billions and billions’ of stars and galaxies and he sees no evidence of a Creator? Unfortunately, Sagan now knows the Truth but, it’s too late for him.
The Bible says that in the end times there will be a “great apostasy” and I see the dismissal of Creationism as the spear point to that. It’s happening now. Christians are mocked and ridiculed by the torch carriers of “tolerance and diversity” that fail to see the hypocrisy of their stance.
Can’t wait to see this Ben. You’ve touched on something that my wife and I have been talking about for years. I have a few stories of my own to tell (as well as the video) of school board meetings where school board members expressed an irrational fear of anything that touches on Creationism. I’m talking nice little old ladies too. What has happened to mankind that it wold be so haughty to suggest that they themselves have “evolved” into what they are with no help from a Creator?”
September 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
“I am amazed at the opposition to Creation by God.”
I believe that you have come to the wrong discussion. The topic of discussion here is evolution versus Intelligent Design. “Creation by God” is not related to the discussion.
“What on earth has changed that we now dismiss any notion of a Creator who created us and everything else?”
That is not relevant to the current discussion.
“If you frequent the website Digg you’ll see plenty of videos under “video” (duh) that are with Richard Dawkins. Anyone that dares to suggest Dawkins may be wrong are treated as “religious lunatics”.”
Please provide a specific reference where someone was called a “religious lunatic” for suggesting that Dawkins was wrong.
“I remember Carl Sagan on Larry King one night years ago being interviewed by Ted Turner when talk of God came up. Both men smirked and Sagan stated that “of course there’s no evidence of God”. I thought “here’s a guy fascinated by the ‘billions and billions’ of stars and galaxies and he sees no evidence of a Creator?”
It would appear that, in addition to discussing a completely irrelevant topic, you are appealing to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
“Unfortunately, Sagan now knows the Truth but, it’s too late for him.”
Please support your assertion with evidence.
“The Bible says that in the end times there will be a “great apostasy” and I see the dismissal of Creationism as the spear point to that.”
Why are you bringing up the subject of Creationism, and why do you believe that the rejection of a religious claim for which there exists no evidence is “apostasy”?
“It’s happening now. Christians are mocked and ridiculed by the torch carriers of “tolerance and diversity” that fail to see the hypocrisy of their stance.”
Please support this assertion with evidence.
“I have a few stories of my own to tell (as well as the video) of school board meetings where school board members expressed an irrational fear of anything that touches on Creationism.”
Ben is advocating a movie that addresses Intelligent Design. I have been assured by proponents of Intelligent Design that Intelligent Design is not creationism. Why are you likening Intelligent Design to creationism? Are you unaware that they are two different subjects, or have Intelligent Design proponents who have denied a connection been lying?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:32 am
mirage790 - “a canine is still a canine”.
Don’t canines come from the lupine? The Wolf became the Dog (with human help I grant you), two seperate species from one common ancestor. I have heard that before somewhere, now where could that be?
And so many types of dog, from 6,000 years of breeding, all those mutations of genetics and DNA to turn a Wolf into a Shitzu!!
I have heard something mightly close to that somewhere else. Now only if I could figure out where!
I wonder what will happen if we give it another say 3 billion years?
September 21st, 2007 at 9:33 am
WHAT: Kansas Board of Education Science Hearings.
PLACE: Topeka, Kansas
WHY: Invite scientists from both sides . . . pro-Darwin and pro Intelligent Design so as to set science standards for Kansas schoolchildren.
ALL 23 I.D. proponents attended and testified.
NONE of the pro-Darwin scientists attended. ALL of them boycotted the hearings.
WHY did they boycott? Because they had no scientific information to support their beliefs. They only had “hot air” and hot air does not cut it when discussing the question “Where did we come from?”
The dictionary defines boycott as a method of intimidation. Why did the pro-evolution Darwinists boycott? Because they have nothing to offer except rhetoric.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:19 am
–In reply to Glen’s claim: “The “father of Intelligent Design” and HIV denier to whom I was referring is Phillip Johnson. Is it at all surprising that Johnson has advocated more than one pseudoscience, not just ID?”
It is hard for me to understand how educated persons could be so misinformed and resort to character assassination such as this. Se the above post.–
It’s bizarre that people like Jbagail condemn themselves in just about every post, by dishonestly projecting their own faults onto others. Johnson’s past opposition is well-known by those informed enough to comment on these matters, which obviously Jbagail is not. Here’s one example, for the woefully ignorant defamatory pro-ID anti-thinkers:
–Given the 10 years of total lack of progress on AIDS, the billions of dollars that have been wasted, the human heart-ache that this issue has caused so many Americans, it seems only sensible that we should re-examine the question of what really causes AIDS. At issue here are not only the lives of those diagnosed with AIDS who are being treated improperly, but also of those who are tormented by the fear of AIDS-for themselves and their children. We can’t allow the scientific bureaucrats at the CDC and NIH to prevent this reappraisal from happening. *–
This was written by: “By Kary B. Mullis, Phillip E. Johnson & Charles A. Thomas Jr.” The whole piece may be found here:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmsdtrib.htm
I should mention that not only do IDists threaten lives by condemning the primary organizing principle in biology, evolution by investigable means, but the HIV denial in which Johnson engaged even more directly threatened the lives of people, especially in Africa.
Fortunately, science has “suppressed” such nonsense here thus far, or in other words, it has discharged its duty to abandon useless ideas whenever and wherever they have proven to be useless. Jbagail chooses to be dishonest about this, as well as most other related matters.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
September 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am
This movie is about accademic freedom - the freedom to challenge the dominant paradigm of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory without being victimised, censored, humiliated, vilified and generally terrorised into “shutting-up”
September 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Speaking as someone who has no problem with the theistic evolution perspective per se (similarly to Alister McGrath and Francis Collins among others), I have to note that it seems as though ID researchers are caught in a catch-22: The scientific community want to see peer-reviewed journal articles published about ID, but no one can publish any ID articles because ID is not science. Hmmm.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
If you look closer at those who claim to have been persecuted for their thoughts about intelligent design, you will find, as I have that they really haven’t suffered real loss. No one has been fired, no one has been imprisoned, and no one’s livelihood has been taken away. Yes, they have been criticized, and they have been ostracized. Well, that’s life!
For example, it seems that Sternberg actually solicited Meyers to submit his ID article for publishing in the journal that he (Sternberg) was editor of, after hearing Meyers present the information at a RAPID (intelligent design) conference. By the way, no non-intelligent design advocates were allowed to attend this conference. The paper should then have been assigned to an associate editor for review and peer review, but Sternberg appears to have railroaded the paper through peer review himself. The journal later repudiated the paper.
Further, Gonzales claims to have been denied tenure at Iowa State University for his views on intelligent design, but the President of ISU stated that since 2001 Gonzales has brought in only $21,000 in grant money, whereas the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants. It seems to me that he was just a low producer.
These are facts that probably won’t be shown in this movie. Based on the trailer, it will probably be a horribly one-sided attempt to rally grass roots support for the teaching of intelligent design in our schools. This fits right into the Discovery Institute’s stated 20 year “wedge” plan, which desires more media attention to their cause. They wanted a PBS special on intelligent design, but apparently went with this movie route.
These people were not persecuted for wanting to bring god into science, but rather they were taken to task for bad science, and poor performance. We should not allow them to be portrayed as martyrs.
Similarly, we should not allow the teaching of intelligent design in science classes. As was shown clearly in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, ID is merely restated creationism, not science. As such, it should be taught, if taught at all, in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not a science class.
For decades now, the Discovery Institute has tried to push its agenda to the American public and its school systems through subterfuge, media manipulation, and litigation, all without any penalty, backlash, or governmental intervention. What it has completely failed to do though, is present any hard, testable, and verifiable or falsifiable theories, proofs or examples to bring any support for their beliefs. And ultimately, that’s what real science is about.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Boy, this is a long thread. But since Dimensio has made half the posts, accounting for more than half the text, it’s actually pretty quick to get through.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Dimensio: Clearly you feel strongly about this (most people whose religion is being attacked do) but do you not have a job or something else in your life requiring attention?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
DImensio Says: in response to “I am amazed at the opposition to Creation by God.” I believe that you have come to the wrong discussion. The topic of discussion here is evolution versus Intelligent Design”.
DImensio: where did you get that idea? I thought it was about academic freedom to discuss the topic evolution versus Intelligent Design. The fact is, what a professor believes about unprovable propositions is of prime importance to survive academia. For all of the lip service given to academic freedom, one is only free to question matters in which the university has no stake. Openly questioning orthodoxy such as Darwinism is taboo that can, and often does, cost your career. And the more prestigious the department, the more it will cost to ask the wrong questions or explore the wrong answers.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
DImensio says this movie “inaccurately claims that professors have been denied tenure as a result of their support for ‘Intelligent Design’”
1. How can you say this when you have not seen the movie? It is still in the production stages so do you have an inside connection?
2. How can you possibly know that no professor has been denied tenure as a result of their support for ID? I know of many. To claim that no professor has been denied tenure as a result of their support for ID you would have to be close to omnipotent. I can prove many have, how can you prove no one has? Have you heard of the problem of proving that no swan is black requires examining every one that has ever lived but to disprove this claim all one has to do is find one black swan.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Demensia…more accurate…asks for specifics of ad hominem attacks, character assassination, sophistry and numerous red herrings, strawmen, appeals to popularity and other logical fallacies. Apparently he does not read any posts other than his own and those he directly responds to.. perhaps not his own.
In my reference to the DI signatories I made no claim as to equal weight to the evo hordes of true believers because popularity is an irrational sophmoric fallacy. Rather the reference is to offer to the community an example of 700 fully credentialed PhD scientific types from major institutions, across a wide spectrum of discliplines, well published in the peer reviewed literature and most actively involved in research in their field. This to counter the claims that ID supporters and Darwinian /Evolutionary doubters are pseudo-scientists, religious fundamentalist idiots, etc. such claims being amply represented in this forum in several flavors.
I suggest that the company consider a through read of the Biotic Message by Walter Remine to see perhaps the most intellectually devastating critique of evolution in toto.
The reason biologists,zoologists, and paleontologists continue to claim ID has no theory, no claims, no predictions, etc. is that their training limits their ability to comprehend the relevant subjects of ID.
I have researched some 27 major university’s undergrad and even grad curricula in these evo discliplines and found:
Math : Usually nothing beyond elementary calculus at best, no statistics, probability, diff eq, calculus of variations, complex variables; no thermodynamics, no physical chemistry, no heat tranfer or fluid mechanics, certainly no classes in sytematics/sytems theory, information theory, etc.
Thus their rather glaring deficiencies in formal subjects integral to ID theory is like asking a 3rd century farmer to begin developing genetically enhanced food production.
Evolution…the phlogiston of the 21st century.
Oh… and where are those examples of major scientific and technical advances made absent intellectual conceptual, cognitive thought as the planning, DESIGNING, and guiding force.
September 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Congratulations to Coffeeholic (1369, 1402), Chemfarmer (1383), and Keith Eaton (1384) on some excellent, well reasoned, incisive posts. (These stoof out on a cursory skim of the comments, I am sure I have missed hundreds of similarly well written posts.)
A note to some of you others: you might do well to consider a bit of Jesus’ wisdom — “For they think that they will be heard for their many words.” (Matthew 6:7)
September 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
1398 Apolitical Disinterested “Neither hypothesis will ever be able to answer the other until there is an honest, and simultaneously, skeptical discourse of each.”
One was discussed quite a bit before the second one because it wasn’t published until 1859.
“And for the record, I believe that neither ID nor evolution have yet passed the test of scientific credibility.”
One is not a scientific hypothesis for obvious reasons and the other one is!
We are lucky that we can still “believe” anything we want to believe.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
To clarify my previous comment “A note to some of you others: you might do well to consider a bit of Jesus’ wisdom — ‘For they think that they will be heard for their many words.’ (Matthew 6:7)” :
A 60,000 word post with 50 links to interminable posts of yours in other comments threads is not going to be read by the vast majority of the audience on a comments thread like this one. Likewise if you put up 50 consecutive posts rebutting some interlocutor line by line by line (DimensioJohn Davison) then you are posting to an audience of one.
September 21st, 2007 at 3:54 pm
DIMENSIO:
I can only assume that you do not have a job, seeing as though you have so much time to post response after response on this forum. Nevertheless, your posts are largely made up of virulent name calling and opinionated conjecture with a false sense of authority; so I’m sure they do not take that much time to compose.
Well, here we go…
* = my original post
# = your reply
** = my response
*“Obviously you would retreat to talkorigins website as predicted; like a good little evolutionist, who realizes that their most fervently held beliefs are being challenged.”
#“Brilliant way to dishonestly dismiss a rebuttal without at all addressing the information itself. It’s much easier for you to ignore a rebuttal with a lame excuse than to acknowledge and counter it.”
**It would only be considered dishonest if it were not true, which is not the case. Had you studied the article and written a response based on your own understanding of the topic then perhaps I could give you credit here; but it is clearly uncharacteristic of the sort who “copy-and-paste” talkorigins links, which is exactly what you did. I’m not here to counter opinion pieces from anti-creationist extremists, only rubbish from your own mind, and the minds that brought us the “lame excuse” we all know and love: “that argument has already been debunked.”
*“Unfortunately, you are highly indoctrinated into the religion of naturalism,”
#“Poisoning the well, again…”
**I’m not telling people (who are not blind to the truth) anything they don’t already know. Evolutionists seek to discredit creationists’ arguments based on the fact that our beliefs are rooted in faith of the unknown (or religion); I’m simply trying to level the playing field by exposing the fact that evolution requires just as much faith, if not more. You do not have to accept this fact, but it does not make it any less true.
*“and thus no amount of evidence contradicting evolution will ever be considered viable (at least not to the point of leading to disbelief).”
#“And more poison. Much easier to attack as an excuse to avoid addressing rebuttals, isn’t it?”
**Well, if you had a valid rebuttal, maybe I would have something to address, don’t you think?
*“Please have a little integrity and at least research for yourself before copying and pasting from anti-creationist websites.”
#“How do you know that I haven’t done any research? Because I’ve come to conclusions that aren’t supported by anti-evolution websites?”
**No, because you “copy-and-paste” the link to talkorigins in place of an actual argument, like every other Darwin-zombie. If you want to be taken seriously, then write your conclusions in response to my valid points, and save the links to anti-creation websites for sources at the bottom.
*“Here are quite a few links establishing the fact that you obviously desire to remain willingly ignorant about such things:
Dinosaur soft tissue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050326/fob1.asp
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/science/25dino.html?ex=1269406800&en=b273d4463ac5bade&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html”
#“And this is addressed at the talkorigins site. But you’d rather attack talkorigins than even acknowledge that the “soft tissue” claims of creationists have been rebutted.
Posting more links to lay publications on the same subject will not make the rebuttals go away. Your continued willful ignorance of the rebuttals do not make them go away. You cannot counter a rebuttal by attacking the website on which the rebutall is hosted.”
**Okay, let’s get one thing straight here: just because a highly biased website such as talkorigins presents an opinionated response to factual claims, does not mean that the argument is over, you win. Although I understand that this is the mentality of you talkorigins pasters, you have to learn to think critically and use that argument to engage in logical discourse relevant to the topic (using your own brain).
You might be surprised to know that I did indeed skim the article you posted, and later when I had time, read it in its entirety; something you probably failed to do yourself, which would not surprise me.
Dr. Hurd’s rant was mainly concerned with deriding certain creationists who produced opinionated responses to Schweitzer’s finds, largely based on her own confessions of the characteristics of the observed discovery. He casually dismisses the creationist reaffirmations of the significance of dinosaur soft tissue by misrepresenting their arguments and attacking them personally. The hypocrisy of this is that Dr. Hurd is likewise basing his assertions on the research conducted by Schweitzer, even though his pompous assuredness suggests otherwise.
Hurd mischaracterizes Wieland’s remarks on more than one occasion; such as the description he (Wieland) gives of the PICTURE of soft, unfossilized, dinosaur tissue, which is directly below his statement as follows:
“The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely ‘history’.”
Obviously Wieland is describing the picture and not the actual cellular structures when he refers to what is “so obvious to the naked eye,” and that the tissue in the picture is unfossilized, not that it was discovered in such a condition. Wieland is a medical doctor by trade, and so one can assume (with great confidence) that he knows that blood vessels are not inherently visible to the naked eye without the help of a microscope, although Hurd would not admit as much.
Hurd is very good at taking such words out of context in an attempt to vilify his enemies. In a display of sheer ignorance, Hurd denounces Wieland for failing to inform the readers of his article of the exact measurements of the specimen (“0.25 millimeters across”) while obviously failing to realize that Wieland began his sentence with the words: “These microscopic structures…”
Hurd continues on with his rant, completely leaving the basic premise of the argument for a short time, to pontificate about how the incontrovertible and infallible dating methods that he and everyone else who he deems worthy to be called a “real scientist” must believe in to be intelligent enough to comprehend any field of science at all. His hypocrisy peaks when he actually accuses creationists of ignoring science and lying about biology. Amazingly he admits that no matter what the condition (i.e. how “fresh” the tissue) of the specimen, the dates are literally “set in stone.” It sounds to me like Hurd is the one ignorant of science here. Science is SUPPOSED to change based on the best available evidence; the evidence is not supposed to be reinterpreted based on strict doctrines of one’s world-view. It seems like evolutionists have used that argument before, but I’m not sure…
Further revealing his religious zeal for all things naturalistic, he confidently claims that Neanderthals were not modern humans, and that Dr. Menton is foolish for believing that Lucy is in fact an extinct, knuckle-walking ape. Unfortunately for Hurd, most of the evidence is against him and his bald assertions; although utilizing evolutionary logic, it’s not a lie if you say it with enough confidence whilst simultaneously berating your opponent. He follows this up by reaffirming the fact that the bones don’t speak for themselves, and that Darwinian disciples alone are the irrefutable voice of the “evidence.”
Hurd then turns his attention to the doctrine of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, clearly establishing his place in the Church of Darwinism. He refers to Dr. Menton’s article ““Ostrich-osaurus” discovery?” which calls into question evolutionists’ vacuous homology arguments. These arguments typically tend to ignore all other homologous comparisons (or comparisons on a large scale, wholly ignoring a lack of steady homology throughout evolution), except the ones they wish to narrowly focus in on. With unwavering pride (which, remember, comes before the fall) he crows that the assumed link between these two creatures (bird and dinosaur) need not be explained because “no scientifically competent reader needs explanation.” Ironically, there used to be a time when no “scientifically competent” person would believe such nonsense as dinosaurs evolving into birds; but I digress. His argument is one of arrogance and is built upon evolutionary assumptions that continue to depend fully on ignoring everything except the things (however insignificant) which validate the core belief system of Darwinism.
Hurd continues his diatribe, leaving not a single reader of his article any room to question the merit of this transitional event (dinosaur to bird evolution) or whether it has ever taken place, without being ostracized from the scientific community for heresy. How silly to denounce people for questioning an unobserved event from “eons” past, despite having nothing more than a few known forgeries and hoaxes of transitional fossils (and at best only a single dubious one), and superficial homology comparisons of unsubstantiated relevance. Realistically, homology can be found in almost any two organisms if one were to simply look for it. This is evidence ONLY of a common Designer. In order to use the homology argument for evolution, you MUST see a steady decline in homologous features by comparison of EVERY creature of diminishing complexity in the evolutionary phylogenetic tree. If these comparisons are not consistent throughout the ancestral lineage of “molecules-to-man,” then you have no basis for comparing ONLY two organisms and using this as grounds for “factual” transitional relationships. If you cannot agree to this, then you’re not even worth arguing with, because logical reasoning has truly escaped you.
*“Mummified dinosaurs
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rare+fossil+reveals+common+dinosaur’s+soft+tissue.+(Dear+Mummy)-a094129219
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur2.htm
http://www.mummytombs.com/mummylocator/animal/dinosaur3.htm
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/personnel/departed/Signore/Scipio.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/scipionyx.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/pelecanimimus.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/1015143.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/Stories/SS0200_dinosaurMummy.asp
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561446286.html”
#”I’m not even sure what you’re trying to demonstrate here. Mummification is a known means of preserving tissue for extended periods of time. How, exactly, does this falsify evolution?”
**I have not once claimed that any of these discoveries “falsify evolution” at all. I am simply a casual observer who is noticing more and more evidence that continues to support the case for a young, intelligently created earth. People will look at these discoveries, and will interpret them based on whatever they want to believe, just as you have.
*“Various dinosaur soft parts:
http://www.stonecompany.com/dinoeggs/study/manning.html”
#“Did you not even *read* this link? The means by which soft tissues can be preserved over an extended period of time is *addressed* there. Your references are undermining your own conclusions.”
**The references are just that, references. If my underlying argument is that the dating methods are fallacious, then obviously I would not agree with the dates claimed in pretty much every single article that I listed. My underlying conclusion would be that several examples of discoveries of soft tissue indeed ‘undermine’ the dogmatic assumptions of supposed millions of years as prescribed by evolutionists.
*As for radiometric dating, there are three major variables that evolutionists MUST absolutely know (which is impossible) in order to correctly calibrate their measurements; otherwise these factors must be assumed, which is in actuality the case. These assumptions include:
1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).”
#“Cutting and pasting from anti-evolution websites, are you?
Didn’t you attack me for “cutting and pasting from anti-creationism websites” (when, in fact, talkorigins is a pro-science site). Isn’t there a word for berating someone for an action that you do yourself?”
**Cutting and pasting general points that help to support your argument are significantly different then pasting a webpage in lieu of an actual argument. Please tell me you understand the difference here. If not I can explain it in more depth for you.
#“Of course, the daughter isotope assumption claim is false: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isodaughter”
**Well, because you so casually say “of course” my claim is false, then perhaps you can explain it to me instead of pasting a link to information I doubt you even understand.
“I expect, now, that you will attack me for referencing talkorigins instead of actually addressing the rebuttal offered there. It’s easier to claim that you are correct when you dismiss counter claims without even looking at them.”
**It’s even EASIER to claim that you are correct by pasting counter claims without knowing what those claims are or understanding them. I shouldn’t have to do your research for you. Please use your own head Dimensio.
*“2. Decay rates have always been constant.”
#“You are aware, are you not, that a change in decay rates would have a rather significant impact on the laws of physics themselves?”
**Not necessarily. Although most observations today tell us that decay rates remain relatively constant, there is no way of knowing whether these rates have remained constant from day zero. In fact, the consistency of these decay rates has only been observed for less than a hundred years thus far. The problem the evolutionist faces, is explaining how and why the laws of physics do indeed exist in the first place and remain immutable in a haphazard universe.
#“Do you have evidence that decay rates are not constant? Do you even understand why this “assumption” of constant decay rates exists?
It’s a derivation of evidevce: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html”
**I never said that the decay rates are NOT constant; I simply said that this is an assumption. The decay rates of stellar structures are of little significance if the catalyst that possibly affected decay rates was localized to our planet. Another reason why these rates must be assumed is because at the initial creation of these elements, the decay rates may have been subsequently different than what we presently observe.
#“But, wait, you don’t want to have information. You want to be allowed to make unsubstantiated assertions, so you find a dishonest cop-out as a means of ignoring any information that shows your claims to be wrong.”
**You mean, as apposed to just pasting links to articles I don’t understand because my best argument is calling everyone a “liar?”
*“3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.”
#“Actually, that’s addressed in my previous link (which I am certain that you will not even read).”
**You’re right; because I read your first one FOR you and refuted it. Now it’s time for you to grow up and do your own research and make your own arguments, little Dimensio.
*“I do not need to substantiate the fact that accurate dating results are contingent on an a priori knowledge of these three points.”
#“Of course not, because you can answer the challenge with demonstratably false claims, then you can use a lame excuse and state that you won’t even look at a website with evidence that challenges your claims.”
**If you think that my claim that these three points must be known in order for you to claim that these dating methods are incontrovertible is demonstrably false, then that means you were somehow able to both observe the creation of these geologic structures, and monitor their decay rates for billions of years (supposedly). If not, then clearly you are wrong, and these are indeed assumptions.
*“In fact, considering that dating results are subsequently off by hundreds of thousands to millions of years for objects of KNOWN age (within the past 2000 years or so),”
#“Evidence?”
**There are several examples of volcanic rocks. These rocks, which are known to have formed within the last 2000 years from recent eruptions, were determined by evolutionists using Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating methods to be hundreds of thousands to millions of years old. Here are some examples:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
So, logically, if these dating methods cannot give accurate results for objects of a KNOWN age, then there is no way that you can honestly use such methods to determine dates for objects of UNKNOWN age. This is just common sense. Now, you might argue that these dating methods are only good when used on objects billions of years old, but that is simply circular reasoning.
*” evolutionists are the ones who need to substantiate the validity of radiometric dating, as this has not yet been accomplished. ”
#“Sure, as soon as you can substantiate your above claim.”
**The burden is on evolutionists here, because credibility of their whole theory rests on the infallibility of these dating methods, which they claim are incontrovertible. If you cannot substantiate this claim by testing these dating methods in a controlled experiment on objects of a known age (meaning the person testing them does not know the age), then what grounds do you have for using these dates to support evolution as a “fact?”
*“But of course, it is much easier for you to ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs and to put all your faith in faulty dating methods and virulently biased websites hosted by naturalistic ideologues, than to accept ultimate truths that upset your materialistic worldview.”
#“Poisoning the well once more. Have you no shame?”
**The only shame I harbor, is that I have wasted this much time trying to convince people who obviously want to remain willingly ignorant.
#“Wait, you’re a creationist. No, you don’t.”
**Shame is a burden YOU will have to carry when the day comes that you find yourself standing before your Creator God and you realize how wrong you really were. I pray that you realize it sooner.
*“This is not a false dilemma for me.”
#“Then you lack fundamental reasoning skills. Showing that the currently estimated age of the earth has been derived from incorrect dating methods would not show that the earth is an age derived from Biblical inferences. If you cannot understand that, then you are wholly irrational. There really is no other way to put it.
The only conclusion that could be inferred from showing that current dating methods used to establish the age of the earth are wrong is that the currently estimated age of the earth cannot be considered reliable. It could mean that the earth is much younger, but it wouldn’t tell you how much younger. It could also mean that the earth is much older, and it could even mean that the currently estimated age is the correct age, but it is only correct through sheer luck and not because of the accuracy of the methods.
Your claim that showing inconsistencies in dating methods demonstrates the accuracy of Biblical claims is flat-out wrong. Either you are completely dishonest for making the claim or your have no sense of logic.”
**Lack of fundamental reasoning skills might be a better description of someone who denies a designer after observing obvious design. You refer to the idea of a false dichotomy I presume? The problem with that line of thinking is that it assumes that one of the options is not an absolute truth. When you consider the logical conclusion that there must be one absolute truth and reality, then if your argument assumes that your belief is that very truth, then your argument has validity. If your belief IS that absolute truth, then the apposing argument has no validity anyways. My belief is based on the logical observation that this universe was designed, whereas yours is not. Furthermore, the Bible is a historical document that substantiates this belief, and is supported on many levels archeologically. If indeed these dating methods you use to support your beliefs are incorrect (or are based on uncorroborated assumptions), then this only further substantiates my beliefs, even though it may not PROVE them.
To be more precise though, my beliefs are fundamentally founded on the absolute truth and authority of the Bible, which is not contingent on the ideas and opinions of man. The logical dichotomy is that either the Bible is indeed the written Word of God, or it is not. If it is not, then I am wrong. If it is, however, then it is wholly rational for me to claim that your assumptions are wrong, which I believe they are.
*“I understand the logical consequences of assuming a universe full of design without a designer, whereas you do not.”
#“Non-sequitur. Showing that existing dating methods are off does not show “design”. You have yet to demonstrate design.”
**Design is in and of itself demonstrable. There are hardly any instances of design ever observed that are not a direct product of a designer. The only observations of this, which evolutionists frequently site, are snowflakes and crystals; both of which are examples of molecular design producing predicted patterns (or designs by proxy). This is subsequent to man building robots, which are then used to create less complex machinery based on a given set of protocols. The robots could not build anything unless the intelligently produced instructions were implemented in the first place. Refer to my post # 894 (about halfway down) for more on snowflake formation.
As for crystals, these are examples of low order, high repetition sequences in nature. DNA is a HIGHLY ordered sequence in which the order is detrimental to the coherency of the molecule. The thing that differentiates between random letters and coherent sentences is intellectually induced order to those letters. A good example of this can be found near the bottom of this page:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n1/snowflakes
Logical deductions can easily be made to determine whether something is necessarily designed or not.
*“You ignore common sense applications of observation that infer the necessity of a creator for a highly complex and highly ordered reality.”
#“You have yet to demonstrate this necessity. Asserting a necessity is not the same as demonstrating such.”
**The necessity is derived from the fact that we have a ‘highly complex and highly ordered reality.’ This is just common sense.
*“You do this because you abhor the idea of an ultimate authority that you are to be held accountable to, which makes it sublimely simple for you to swallow the mendacious pill of evolution, no matter how many facts are stacked up against it.”
#“Nice strawman. Nice well-poisoning. Nice unfounded assertions about me. Nice way of insulting all who accept evolution without providing a shred of evidence to support your assertions. Nice complete dishonest ignoring of the fact that many — if not most — who accept evolution ARE NOT ATHEISTS.”
**I was merely explaining the reasoning behind your willing ignorance of the observable inferences of design. I don’t think that they are unfounded, because the whole premise of evolution is an attempt to explain the universe and everything in it (including all biological life) without a creator. If a creator is in fact a viable explanation for the genesis of our reality, then you must accept Intelligent Design as a competing theory with just as much veracity as evolution; and there also you must accept the Bible as reasonably being a written account of literal history, which subsequently includes a worldwide flood being the cause of our observed geological phenomena. If not, then you are simply substantiating what I said by your refusal to accept a creator behind the creation, a priori.
#“Ken Miller and Francis Collins alone are sufficient to show that your claims are utter lies.”
**I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean.
#“Really, why should anyone take you seriously when your claims are so transparently dishonest?”
**Well, I’m surprised that you didn’t outright call me a “liar” like you usually do to people. Calling me “transparently dishonest” is like pointing out the speck in my eye, while ignoring the giant pink elephant in yours; er…something like that. But seriously, I wasn’t trying to be mean by saying that; it was more of a general reasoning as to why people reject the idea of God, and there also the Bible: because they find it much less burdensome to live a life free of ultimate rules and authority, especially when those rules and that authority are explicitly stated in a book called the Bible. If you are arguing against the idea of Intelligent Design, then perhaps that is why I included you in that crowd. To me it is impossible to reconcile the idea of an advocate of evolution who is a theist; it is nonsensical. If evolution is true, then God is not necessary; if God is true, then evolution is not necessary. Even many prominent atheistic evolutionists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Huxley, etc.) seem to [agree/have agreed] with this sentiment.
*“In this case, you believe in fallacious dating methods that cannot determine correct measurements for objects of known age, and are built on crucial assumptions that cannot be verified by any means.”
#“You have yet to show actual fallacy in the dating methods.”
**And you have yet to show the reliability of them; much more so the incontrovertible nature of them.
*“Because of this, you disavow the authenticity and authority of a historical document that has been corroborated archeologically time and time again, simply because this account of origins does not align with your own presupposed worldview.”
#“Whoa, please provide documentation of this accuracy. Merely asserting it is not evidence.”
**You know, that’s the same thing I’ve been saying about evolution for quite some time now?
Let’s repeat that for all the evolutionists out there: “Merely asserting it is not evidence.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
http://www.ronrhodes.org/Manuscript.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
*“Ironically, evolutionists do not have a problem conceding any single recorded historical event in the Bible, except for the ones that directly contradict their belief in naturalism (i.e. creation ex nihilo, a worldwide flood, etc.).”
#“Well, there’s also the problem of there being absolutely no geological evidence of a worldwide flood. Hell, that one was being tossed out even before Darwin’s time.”
**You mean besides the billions of fossils around the earth (how do fossils form?), worldwide geological strata (formed by the flood?), mass fossil graves (some kind of cataclysmic event?), creatures fossilized while giving birth or consuming their prey (meaning they were buried quite rapidly by water and sediments), the Cambrian Explosion (evolutionists say “what?!”), tightly bent rock strata (rocks usually don’t just bend), polystrate fossils (cutting through several layers of supposed geologic column), coal beds (highly compressed vegetation in water and sediments), fossil fuels (highly compressed organisms in water and sediments), and subterranean bodies of water (fountains of the great deep)? That doesn’t seem like much of a problem for creationists. Although perhaps you can rephrase that statement to say: “there is absolutely no evidence that contradicts evolution that evolutionists will not ignore.”
*“I might reciprocate that you cannot prove evolution”
#“Nothing in science is ever proven.”
**You wouldn’t think that by listening to the Darwin-zombies parrot how evolution is a “fact” every chance they get.
*“by simply disproving creation,”
#“I have never claimed that disproving Biblical creationism would prove evolution, you shameless liar.”
**And out comes the “liar” accusation, unfounded as usual. If you kept my whole quote in context, you would see that I was being rhetorical and not making an actual statement of fact. This is why I included words such as ‘might,’ and ‘but.’ Nevertheless, you obviously don’t need justification for labeling someone a ‘liar,’ as I think anyone on this forum can attest.
*“but the basis for that idea is a logical fallacy because the event of creation is ultimately inseparable from the creation itself (which we observe).”
#“You have yet to demonstrate that what “we observe” is actually a “creation”. Even when you do this, you do not demonstrate that the Biblical creation account is the correct account for this creation. Why not another religion’s creation account? Why not a creation account that no human has yet considered?”
**If I can demonstrate mathematically via the principles of probability, that highly ordered, information-rich entities cannot form arbitrarily by chance, much less on a universal scale, then I have proven the necessity of Intelligent Design as the most logical explanation. That doesn’t mean I have PROVEN creation, or any specific method of creation; only that I have used the law of noncontradiction to select the more logical choice, which is creation. The rest is simply faith; and the fact that the Bible has been corroborated archeologically time and time again.
*“I would say that because creation is both necessary and apparent, that evolution is indeed irrelevant, however.”
#“Well, you can say that, but it doesn’t make your assertion that creation is “necessary and apparent” true.”
**Yes, but common sense observations and logical reasoning certainly do.
And last but not least…
*“If evolution is true, then one’s own actions can only be judged based on whether or not it is beneficial to their own survival.”
#“This claim is false. The person who made the claim is a liar. The theory of evolution merely explains events within biological systems. It neither defines nor rules out methods for judging actions. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.”
**I made the claim, actually. So basically, evolution is assumed, even though you cannot explain where it came from, why or how it started, or why rules exist that govern the universe (i.e. laws of physics) and the hearts of man (i.e. morality)? Not only that, but you cannot define the rules of morality because evolution makes no such predictions. Why them am I a liar for exposing this obvious fact? You really need a new argument Demensio, because accusing people of lying is a little childish and it is getting old.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Great job, Ben!!! It’s about time that someone makes a stand for our freedom of speach & religion that is what this country was founded on. America was founded because the first Americans wanted religious freedom!!! It amazes me how many Americans today seem to want to take God out of the very nation that was founded and fought for by our forefathers as “One Nation Under God”. It’s about time that America be reminded that they have what they do today in this country because of God and be thankful that you are an American!!!! For those of you fighting so hard against the very God who created you please feel free to do it in another country!! Because I know your forfather’s and mother’s didn’t fight all the wars for religious freedom here in America to have any of them undone!!!!!!!!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
“What if the speed of light (c) is different than what science has accepted it to be? What will science do?”
Don’t know about science, but personally, I’d stop throwing out light bulbs I think are burned out. Maybe the problem is that they just need lots of time for the light to come out. (Thanks to ID for this insight.)
September 21st, 2007 at 11:19 pm
“What observation in science would point you towards an intelligent creator?”
That is not for science to say. But if you insist that scientific observations point one towards an intelligent creator, we could also find plenty of scientific observations that point us towards an incompetent, cruel, or just plain perverted creator– or even multiple creators, as Dr. Davison has mentioned. I mean, who would create humans and then infest them with head lice, body lice, hook worms, etc to slowly eat them alive? (Not my God!)
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder…The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture.
-Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:03 am
GW said: “Just like Islam, Evolution will no and cannot tolerate any compeating ideas”
This is untrue. Science thrives on competing ideas. The thing is, the other other ideas actually have to *compete*. They have to explain the facts equally well and have to be supported by evidence. And if they want to overturn an established theory, they have to do it *better*.
And why did you have to throw Islam in there?
“This from the disciplines that have given us the Piltdown man, the Nebraska man and Lucy.”
The same disciplines that also exposed Piltdown Man as a hoax and Nebraska Man as just a mistake. What’s wrong with Lucy? She’s just a relatively complete example of an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton.
“What if, as recent research has suggested, c is not the constant it has been made out to be? What if the speed of light (c) is different than what science has accepted it to be? What will science do?”
Science will do what it always does: take in the new evidence and think of new theories or ways to modify existing theories to explain it. This is what happened with relativity and quantum mechanics.
As an aside, the data that suggest the speed of light hasn’t always been the same are far from conclusive.
“Why is it that the religion of science can have physical absolutes, mathmatical absolutes, chemical absolutes and absolutes concerning time and space, but when we talk about moral absolutes… such cannot exist?”
They may or may not exist, that’s a question for the philosophers, not for science. The reason being, you can’t measure a moral.
“Anyway, thanks for proving the point that Evolutionists are militant, so-called intellectual elitists who will not tolerate any blasphemy of their doctrine.”
Are people who accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun also militant intellectual elitists who won’t tolerate blasphemy of their doctrine?
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:39 am
Dawkins is apparently no longer “poisoning minds” at Oxford. I understand he no longer lectures there. He is probably terrified at the prospect that a student might ask him a question. Oxford should sack him for failure to do his duty.
Ben Stein
Isn’t it interesting that none of the primary spokespersons in this idiotic debate appear here? Instead, insecure “blogheads” that they are, they send their lackies, Glen Davidson and Alan Fox representing the atheist Darwinism of Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers and Wesley Elsberry, while William Dembski sends forth the biggest bully in cyperspace, DaveScot/David Springer to represent his contingent of Christian Fundamentalists. Incidentally, as I have documented, Springer claims he never posted here, that it was probably I, using his name!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
My position has always been that both sides are dead wrong. The truth lies elsewhere in an evolution planned millions of years ago by an unknown number of Creators, a planned or “prescribed” sequence which was completed with the appearance of its ultimate goal - ourselves. Every scrap of evidence favors this interpretation. That is why I am so thoroughly loathed by both sides of a debate that should never have taken place. The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery.
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…. They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 am
I’d like to clarify to Dimensio that this debate is not simply evolution vs. ID, but more specifically the free expression of inquiry in education.
This movie is about intelligent people who work in academic fields that are being biased against because their scientific conclusions point to something outside of what is natural science is. Yes, I understand the definition. So, no they can’t empirically prove what is outside of science by the rules that have been established. We agree on that. But the methods they are using are valid, so when logic and reason point to “whatever”,…… “whatever” should be looked at.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
I personally care very little for debates and interpretatons of what the scientific evidence found to date is supposedly “telling us,” but I would like to correct some misunderstandings about what the Bible actually teaches.
First, the Bible never teaches that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the Universe. These fallacies found their way from secular philosophy (Aristotle) and pan-theology into Christendom in the Dark Ages due to the enormous influence of human teachings on the Catholic Church’s policy and continued to be enforced into the Renaissance with effect to truth-seekers like Copernicus and Galileo. These ideas were no doubt reinforced by misinterpretations of “the four corners of the earth,” symbolic of the entire face of the earth (as though laid out on a map), in the mostly symbolic book of Revelation and “the foundations of the earth” metaphor found in the books of Job and Psalms, both recognized as Hebrew poetry (ideal place for a metaphor you think?). While no small task, a careful reading of the Bible will let you know that no idea is given that the earth is either flat or the center of the Universe.
Likewise, the Bible does not teach that the earth is only six millennia old as of today. This contribution to popular biblical misunderstandings can be attributed directly to Archbishop James Ussher who in 1654 published a work including a calculation of the date of 4004 B.C. as “the Beginning.” His resultant timeline was included in the margins of Anglican (”King James”) Bibles over the years leading many Christians to assume that Ussher’s chronology was correct (it was not). Again, a careful reading will identify both an accounting of about a six millennia period up to the end of the 1st century A.D. as well as the potential for some gaps in any chronology. As a result, biblical chronologies have yielded the most conservative results of anywhere from four to twenty millennia before Christ. Few biblical scholars agree on any actual dates usually noting only “generally-accepted dates” after the beginning of the 2nd millennium before Christ.
Established religion, such as the Pope and the leadership of the Catholic Church, does not speak for most Christians in the world. Never has, never will. I personally don’t care that the Pope has expressed a sympathetic view towards evolution just as I don’t care if he were to declare tomorrow that Christians everywhere should believe in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Everyone must read the Bible for him or herself and make a decision as to whether it has any personal relevance. It is unfortunate that many try to make the Bible say things not only that it does not say but also contributes nothing to that in which it is interested.
That being said, I have never found any teaching in the Bible which directly contradicts any known laws of science which couldn’t also be interpreted as supernatural/miraculous, symbolic, or poetic. I have found, however, that what it unquestioningly teaches as fact is incredibly reliable and wonderfully relevant to me, and whether its other teachings are symbolic or factual in no way lessens their importance or relevance to the overall story of man’s redemption to God through Jesus Christ.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Ben, you know you’re doing something right when you rile the ‘tolerant’ ones enough so they start spewing vile bile. Keep up the great work…we’ll be looking for the flick in February!
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 am
You Darwinists want a theory - try this on for size:
[The Genetic Imperative is that an organism recognises its Genetic Imperative and channels all its resources into achieving the purposes of its Genetic Imperative.]
This is done quite naturally by all living things except human - but that does not mean we have no Genetic Imperative it just means we havn’t recognised it..yet!
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
DImensio Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
“Intelligent Design that Intelligent Design is not creationism. Why are you likening Intelligent Design to creationism? Are you unaware that they are two different subjects, or have Intelligent Design proponents who have denied a connection been lying?”
….Truly you understand that individuals have their own definitions of Intelligent Agency. BTW,Why would you consider it scientific reasoning if scientist theorize “Pansmeria” such as…Aliens from outer-space seeded our planet, but totally discount deists theory that there could possibly be a GOD? This is just one reason why it takes greater FAITH to believe in Evolution, than it does to believe in a Deist…
***”To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Sir Ernst B. Chain, Medicine, 1945)***
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Sir William Thomson, also known as Lord Kelvin and one of the most respected scientists of the 19th century and co-discoverer of the Second Law of Thermodynamics once said:
“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.”
Those 19th century words are now more dynamic today!….
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically”-Albert Einstein
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”-Albert Einstein
My hope is that this movie will OPEN some evolutionist eyes!!!
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
About my comment, materialist-Darwinists “militate against the things that matter most—non-material realities such as truth, goodness, justice”
Craig responded, “Come on now. Please find me any “Darwiniac” who will complain about any of these.”
Do you not know what materialism is? It is the doctrine that nothing exists but matter. No unchanging truths, no universal ethic, no transcendent values.
About my comment, “Thus, there can be no freedom, because political freedom rests on a universal standard of justice that supersedes all institutional powers, including the power of the state.”
Craig responded. “Now you’re just being silly.”
Apparently, you do not understand the implications of your own doctrine. Freedom is not won through fanciful wishing; it occurs only in a political environmment that acknowledges the reality of natural rights that are inalieable and unchanging. In your Darwinist-materialist world, only changing matter exists. Thus, there is no universal moral law or any “self evident truth that all men are created equal.”
About my comment, “If I am not permitted to say that the design that appears in nature is real, then neither am I permitted to say that there is any design or purpose to my existence.”
Craig wrote, “But you are permitted to say so. You can publish a book about it, and many have. You just can’t say it in a science class until you can produce some evidence that backs you up.”
Oh, that’s just great. I get to exercise my freedom of speech provided I am talented enough to write a book and lucky enough to get it published. Even when that happens, I had better be careful. Meet Professor Gonzalez at Iowa State, who dared write such a book at lost his tenure as a result.
And speaking of science, what gives the Darwinist establishment the right to define science in such a way that a researcher may not explore anything other than natural laws? Science has been defined many different ways throughout history.
The criteria for science don’t just fall out of the sky. There are varying opinions about where the line of demarcation between science and non-science should be. Why should ID researchers knuckle under to the tyranny of narrow-minded materialists who define science in such an exclusionary way? Why should original thinkers be hampered by bureaucrats who happen to have established a cozy little community of true believers that closes ranks around dissenters? Why should those who pursue truth be marginalized by those who value survival and prestige over all other things?
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
[…] think the blog entry - the only one so far - says it all: A huge part of this freedom is freedom of […]
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
This is a message to the moderator: Please tell your web developer to look into paging! When the blog is on a single page like this it takes 10 years to load! It would also be helpful if the most recent posts appeared first, so we wouldn’t have to go the bottom of the page to catch the latest posts. Thanks!
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Just love that standard comment : “Ryan Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
There is no controversy. ID has no theory, no predictions, no data. It is not science, therefore the scientific community does not address it. ”
Karl Popper also indicated that Darwinism made no predictions and could not be tested independently, and is full of holes in its explanations… It is still very much taught as the only theory…
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
The Darwinists have for years relied upon faulty evidence and lies to support there claims of macroevolution, such as taking evidence supporting microevolution and using it to support their evolutionary theories. They must be defensive when their monopoly of the education system is shown to be a fraud. Darwin’s naturalistic presuppositions blinded him to other explainations of the earth’s orgins. ID is simply scientific proof for creationism. Irreducible complexity is just one of the proofs of creation. Thanks Ben for exposing the lies and bias.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Davison, I’ve told you to stop imitating me. Perhaps you should get back to research as you’ve done none for a VERY LONG time. Perhaps you could be Sal Cordova’s research assistant?
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
· Jacob Evilsizor in post 1426. I applaud you. The reason I don’t respond to Dimensio, is because of his ignorance and closed mind. He refuses to look beyond Darwinism and will continually tell many they are wrong. If he actually opened his mind to other ideas, this would be apparent in his posts. He wants to state we don’t see the so-called facts at talkorigins, but he refuses to see beyond that site.
The talkorigins site can say it has all the transitional fossils it wants, doesn’t make it true. Many evolutionary scientists will state, there are no transitional fossils. So, why should I believe a site over what scientists say?
I think ppl have a right to speak about anything they want here, it doesn’t have to be exclusively to the subject of Darwinism and ID. It’s called freedom of speech and the right to say what is on their mind.
I have researched much about Darwinism, what it lacks, and how ID and Creation hold more viable facts than Darwinism. Common sense and logic will tell you , things do look designed. And to think that everything evolved from one common ancestor is not feasible at all. There is no evidence to support that at all. None.
I, myself started to wonder if Dimensio was getting calluses on his fingertips.
Sharelle Says: “It amazes me how many Americans today seem to want to take God out of the very nation that was founded and fought for by our forefathers as “One Nation Under God”. It’s about time that America be reminded that they have what they do today in this country because of God and be thankful that you are an American!!!!”
I agree, we are One Nation under God. When I was in grade school, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance. But, because God is in it, it is no longer allowed, and it is supposed to be patriotic. Where is our patriotism? Because of one word “God”? we are suppose to suppress that too?
I understand we have many foreign ppl in America, but if they have other beliefs, than by no means, they don’t need to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but at least as an American, I think it should stay in our hearts.
It seems the freedom of speech is going in a downward spiral because of Darwinism. And Darwinism is a big part of suppression of freedom of speech, thought, and open mindedness.
Craig says: “Science thrives on competing ideas. The thing is, the other other ideas actually have to *compete*. They have to explain the facts equally well and have to be supported by evidence. And if they want to overturn an established theory, they have to do it *better*.”
How can they compete when Darwinism will not allow them to compete? That is what this movie is about, academic suppression. They do explain the facts equally well, if not better, but because of their facts, Darwinism pretty much goes down the drain. As well as the control of minds. It would no longer be unilateral thinking as per Darwinism requests.
As for the dating methods, this came into play because of the supposedly slow evolution of everything, which of course would have to take million and millions of years. But since slow evolution doesn’t have any support behind it, then the millions of years can be questioned as well. And those dating methods used have been wrong as Jacob E pointed out with the known lava rock and it’s actual age. Scientists have dated it to be millions of years old when it was known to say only be 20 years old, as from the lava rock for example from St. Helens.
And I thank God for our service people, who without all those that fought and still fight for our country and our freedom, we wouldn’t have it. And many of those service people who fight for your freedom and your freedom to speak, believe in God. Are you a Darwinist going to tell them they are a matter of molecules only and are wrong in their belief in having God in their life? Should they just lay their guns down, because they are nothing? Came from nothing, and going no where? Nothing to look forward to? Or should they feel they have a purpose in life? That there is a reason to fight, because God gave us morals, compassion, love and free will, among many other reasons to live as well, and to fight for One Nation Under God.
To our service people and their families, and in remembrance of 9/11; I dedicate this song: http://www.marilynoakley.com/cltw_b.mp3
©M Oakley/B Scull Jr.
~M
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Darwinists don’t acknowledge Intelligent Design OK - But can you deny DESIGN INTELLIGENCE - how do you explain the successfully autocratic nature of all organic life.
Darwinists denigrate creation - they write articles like “Design Flaws the Prove Evolution is Blind” and conclude “BACK-TO-FRONT RETINAS ARE A MISTAKE”.
This is sheer arrogance. Because of their Darwinian bias they fail to see two (among many other things) pertinant facts that our eyes design contribute to our human condition.
(1)It is exactly the ‘eye’ design that allows us be able to read.
(2) Our visual stimuli needs to be ascessed “emotionally as well as intellectually”. Our responses to visual stimuli would be purely mechanical otherwise. Eye design is customised for this ‘emotional’ registration also.
3) Blind Spot? This not only makes us a little more cautious it relfects “intellectual” blind spots too.
These points are not permitted in today’s scientific environment.
Once we show some respect for “design” details we will make scientific leaps in our understanding of this anomaly called HUMAN.
And I hope someone takes note of what I’ve said here because it isn’t going to see the light of day beyond this blog.
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
To Craig,
Don’t really understand the question, are you questioning who believes the earth revolves around the sun? (I believe we all do) or are you questioning the character and doctrine of those who do? (too open ended to answer)
Was Lucy found as a complete skeleton at the same location? If not how far apart were the piece parts found? In the imortal words of that great philosopher Jerry Maguire, “show me the money.” How much is a new species “find” worth these days? what is an intact dinosauer skeleton going for? What was Lucy worth? I’m just asking questions here. It’s hard to see modern science as some noble enterprize for the betterment of mankind (that would admit any of it’s facts might be w–ww-wrong) when it is so obviously tied to the botttom line.(I’ll save you the effort: religious hucksters on the televangelism circuit are the religious equivalent. I concede that point.)
I’ll stand by my evolutionists/Islam comparison. Since neither religion can be reasoned with without jihad breaking out.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 am
“Do you not know what materialism is? It is the doctrine that nothing exists but matter. No unchanging truths, no universal ethic, no transcendent values.”
How, exactly, does your incorrect definition of materialism relate to the theory of evolution?
“Apparently, you do not understand the implications of your own doctrine.”
I am unaware of anyone who holds to a “doctrine” that there are no “unchanging truths”. Moreover, I fail to understand the relevance of a discussion of materialism on a forum where the theory of evolution is discussed.
“Freedom is not won through fanciful wishing; it occurs only in a political environmment that acknowledges the reality of natural rights that are inalieable and unchanging. In your Darwinist-materialist world, only changing matter exists. Thus, there is no universal moral law or any “self evident truth that all men are created equal.”
It would appear that you are under the impression that all who accept the theory of evolution are materialists. In addition to this not being true, you have also not accurately stated materialism. Might I suggest that you avoid using incorrect generalizations, as it does negatively impact the credibility of your claims.
“Oh, that’s just great. I get to exercise my freedom of speech provided I am talented enough to write a book and lucky enough to get it published.”
No one has suggested any such restriction. You are drawing conclusions that are not logically derived from previous statements.
You are free to make any statement that you wish.
“Even when that happens, I had better be careful. Meet Professor Gonzalez at Iowa State, who dared write such a book at lost his tenure as a result.”
Your statement is not correct. Professor Gonzalez did not “lose” his tenure. He was never granted tenure, and thus could not have lost it.
“And speaking of science, what gives the Darwinist establishment the right to define science in such a way that a researcher may not explore anything other than natural laws? ”
Science is the study of the natural universe as a means of finding natural causes as an explanation for observed events. If non-natural causes are suggested as an explanation for observed events, the explanation is, by definition, not science.
Science operates under methodological naturalism. As, thus far, there are no reliable means for observing or reproducing supernatural events, it is impossible — at present — to adapt the supernatural to the scientific method. Complaining that you do not like the established methodology of science is not justification for changing the definition of science.
“The criteria for science don’t just fall out of the sky.”
This is correct. The standards and boundaries of science have been well-defined for centuries.
“There are varying opinions about where the line of demarcation between science and non-science should be.”
While this is true, it should be noted that not all opinions on the subject are of equal merit.
“Why should ID researchers knuckle under to the tyranny of narrow-minded materialists who define science in such an exclusionary way?”
If you are attempting to suggest that only “materialists” define science in such a way as to exclude non-natural causes, then you are mistaken. You should reconsider your premises, as your conclusions will be faulty if your starting assumptions are incorrect.
“Why should original thinkers be hampered by bureaucrats who happen to have established a cozy little community of true believers that closes ranks around dissenters?”
The methodology of science is not established to “close ranks around dissenters”. It exists as it does because it has proven itself to be a reliable means of obtaining results. If you are able to conceive of a means of including the supernatural while yeilding results as consistent and reliable as the current methodology of science, please present your claims.
“Why should those who pursue truth be marginalized by those who value survival and prestige over all other things?”
Your statements are thus far unsupported.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 am
“….Truly you understand that individuals have their own definitions of Intelligent Agency.”
I have been told by Intelligent Design advocates that the actual identity of the “Intelligent Designer” is not relevant to the claim of “Intelligent Design”. I note, however, that you have not atually answered my question.
“BTW,Why would you consider it scientific reasoning if scientist theorize “Pansmeria” such as…Aliens from outer-space seeded our planet, but totally discount deists theory that there could possibly be a GOD?”
I discount the suggestion of a “a GOD” (or any supernatural agency) as a scientific theory because supernatural entities — which would include “a GOD” — are outside of the realm of scientific inquiry and, as such, claims of “a GOD” cannot be considered scientific and therefore cannot be theory. I will note, however, that I do not “discount” such suggestions completely; I concede that such an explanation may be true, however even if it is true it is not scientific.
“This is just one reason why it takes greater FAITH to believe in Evolution, than it does to believe in a Deist…”
This statement is a non-sequitur. You have not established any requirements of faith.
“***”To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.”
This is correct. I am aware of no one who claims that extant biodiversity is solely a result of “chance mutations”. In fact, environmental selection pressures, which are not random, are a significant factor in the current status of extant biodiversity. That is not irreconcilable with fact, and there is significant evidence for such an event.
It would appear that, in addition to being unfamiliar with the evidence used in support of the theory of evolution, your source is also unfamiliar with the fundamental mechanisms of the theory.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 am
“. But the methods they are using are valid, so when logic and reason point to “whatever”,…… “whatever” should be looked at.”
The problem, however, is that their methods are not valid if they are claiming that conjecture without a stated specific mechanism is “theory”. A theory attempts to explain observations as being the result of known extant processes. Thus far, no ID proponent has explained the “design process”, thus Intelligent Design cannot be at theory.
ID proponents have yet to explain how “whatever” may be examined. They merely insist that “whatever” is a valid explanation, even though they do not define “whatever” in any meaningful sense. This is why their claims are without merit.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:29 am
“Demensia…more accurate”
Your personal attack based solely upon a misspelling of my handle does not give your claims additional credibility.
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 am
“WHY did they boycott? Because they had no scientific information to support their beliefs.”
Please demonstrate that your assertion is the actual reason for their lack of attendance.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:42 am
Long posts and long lists of websites never get read. So why are they in this blog?
Most of us do not want to read books here, but rather opinions . . . very short opinions.
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
In reply to
Gonzales claims to have been denied tenure at Iowa State University for his views on intelligent design, but the President of ISU stated that since 2001 Gonzales has brought in only $21,000 in grant money, whereas the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants. It seems to me that he was just a low producer.Gonzales claims to have been denied tenure at Iowa State University for his views on intelligent design, but the President of ISU stated that since 2001 Gonzales has brought in only $21,000 in grant money, whereas the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants. It seems to me that he was just a low producer.
Claimed? He got it in writing! In print! Also, grants are usually not obtained by individuals but by groups or departments. Every grant I was awarded was with other researchers. Science is no longer a one man or women operation as it once was. Look at the names on papers now. Usually several are listed, often many. The problem was his peers would not work with him to get grants. Also, he was one of the most published professors in peer reviewed articles in the college.
Also as to “the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants” Where in the world did you get this figure? The average for a non tenured lone professor was 1.2 million? This may have been the average for the department, not individuals.
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Jacob Evilsizor said
“Further revealing his religious zeal for all things naturalistic, he confidently claims that Neanderthals were not modern humans, and that Dr. Menton is foolish for believing that Lucy is in fact an extinct, knuckle-walking ape. Unfortunately for Hurd, most of the evidence is against him and his bald assertions; although utilizing evolutionary logic, it’s not a lie if you say it with enough confidence whilst simultaneously berating your opponent.”
Jacob, Have you ever seen fossils from a Neanderthal? If you have, where did you see them? Neanderthals were certainly NOT anatomicaly modern humans.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
All editions of bibles r 100 % forged. Jesus survived crucifixion and secretly fled to lost tribes of Jews in Kashmir (Kashmiris are lost 10 tribes of Jews and were moved from Palestine to Kashmir by force by King Nebuchanezzar 741 BC). Jesus lived there and died at 120 yr age. His grave is in sri nagar. Faith of god peole is ONLY AND ONLY Fictions —- No reality in god even 1%. Those not of pork eaters are the most dumb people in mankind history and finally they will realize that they r
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Wow. So many people ABOVE are ridiculing Intelligent Design. What are they SCARED of???
Do some of these people realize that the question is “Can’t we even discuss the “D” word in class without persons getting censured…at some universities, etc.?”
If you all think “intelligent design” is so bad…then hold the college forums. EXPOSE the fraud. Put up YOUR experts against similarly qualified ID experts.
Invite the major proponents, and let your profs shoot them down
..on the field of honor for academic idea challenges, with worthy representatives from each side…
the fairly moderated college debate forum.
(OR ARE YOU AFRAID???)
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Really, What’s Science?
Scientist say that science can be backed up by research. Since science is only conjecture, and guess work (check your dictionary and refer to your education on what science is) why then is scientific research considered accurate?
The terms used in research and scientific reports are terms made up and given by man. This is not accuracy but guess work. If science is not guess work why than has science contradicted itself and made statements such as, we have learned recently that we were wrong, and we have found out our calculations were wrong, etc., etc.? Where is the accuracy in that? You may say to be human is to error. Erro can be fatal.
We see more of this inaccuracy in the medical and health field. We see medications that are supposed to be tested by chemist who of course are scientist. These medications often are fatal. Again scientific research that was inaccurate. Again based on conjecture and guess work.
Speaking of publish or perish as one of you wrote about creationist, seems science publishes and many still perish. Where is the accuracy?
There was a book written that was not just research but personal experiences though verbal and visual exchange. Through the generations these experiences were handed down in written form. Yet, the book that records the first history of this world has not changed and does not contradict itself. Of course if you want to take parts of it without entirety of content, than you could make it appear to be inaccurate. Should I call you than a lunatic, the term used by many on this site? I don’t think so.
Many are taught by professors who do not agree with other professors. An example of this has occurred in our courts. One lawyer calls on a professor, scientist, or doctor who is considered an expert and he testifies to what he believes about the given subject. Then the second lawyer calls on his expert professor, scientist, or doctor who is also considered to be an expert and he gives opposite testimony on the same topic. Where is the accuracy here?
These same professionals may have taught you that God does not exist. Where is the scientific proof of that? Again guess work and conjecture.
Perhaps they are angry because they don’t want to believe there is a being that is superior to them, created them, loves them and only wants what is best for them.
Is it rebellion that would make them want to believe that they evolved from a dumb animal rather than being created superior to all creatures by a loving God who only intended the very best for them?
It seems that intellectual ascent has brought this world to the conditions of almost no return. Was it your intellectual professors who have taught you not to believe in God? Who are they? Do you suppose they believe they are superior to God, have become God, and have now become God in your site? Are they truly all knowing? I don’t think so, but it appears that many people now believe they are all knowing. Perhaps you have become as cynical as they?
I do not mean to sound as though I am demeaning anyone. I simply am concerned and am sorrowful that many choose to believe such men or women. Intellect is good, but wisdom is better. Do your own thinking and don’t be puppets that have been created by such men or women.
Do as I suggested on this site previously. Do your own research or experiment. Ask the One who is in question.
Ask God if He exists, not just once, but continue this for a period of time that is equal to scientific research.
In all sincerity,
Jean S.
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
The creationist A. E. Wildersmith (deceased) pointed out the hypocrisy of the materialists years ago simply by pointing out that the SETI projects used a mathmatical filter and pattern recognition scheme to detect deep space electro-magnetic signalling from an intellect as opposed to random white or colored noise.
If a signal could be authenticated as non-random and not noise by the scientists the source would have to be an intelligence since that is the only possibiity given the statistical filtering techniques employed.
That is, at a certain agreed upon statistical/probabilistic threshold it is impossible for certain codes and messages to arise and communicate meaningful and actionable information unless an intellect has designed and effected the transmission of the coded information.
However, when examing the genetic code and the information contained therein the same commmunity claims there is no need to consider that an intelligence was necessary to design and effect the code and the actionable information so contained.
Thus hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance are defined by the materialists.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Stephen, I find your views on ‘materialism’ very odd, especially with your implication of moral relativism, which is well and truly not the province of materialism, but cross-cuts religions and philosophies alike.
Which religion espouses this? If you’re talking about the Judeo-Christian ethic, why was it okay once upon a time to slaughter the Canaanites, or the residents of Bethel? Why, in Jesus’ time, was it okay to own slaves? Why did Saul think that women should shut up in church? Why is heresy no longer punishable by death in civilized countries?
That does not bespeak universal truth or transcendent values.
Why does slavery disgust us now? Do we at last realize what slavery is like from the point of view of the slaves? Do we now at last have some empathy? To me, that represents moral maturity, and is the reason we can look back on some biblical stories and consider them not to represent moral advice.
As far as the Gonzalez story is concerned, it is strange what you are squeezing out of it.
For one, astronomers and physicists make weird pronouncements about biology and the universe all the time. They’re often wrong, but that’s part of the fun you get when you delve into “unanswerable” questions about the cosmos. For two, Gonzalez didn’t lose tenure. He, like many, many other applicants (the vast majority of which never wrote any books about intelligent design), did not gain tenure, and he’s not a particularly stellar candidate for tenure as it stands.
Why do you find the standards for science particularly onerous? It’s methodological naturalism. If a god or gods or aliens existed and could affect things, methodological naturalism can catch it. If you found a different biblical verse written in base-64 in Esperanto near the telomere of every creature on earth, that would be a major discovery. If you then genetically manipulated a question and got an answer in the genes of the babies, that would be discoverable under the “materialist” rules of science. Same would go for a discovery of a duck whose DNA was totally different from other ducks.
Where “materialism” comes in with science is that you have to be able to measure an effect in the real world. If you saw Bible verses on the telomeres when you look, but they suddenly disappeared whenever anyone else looked at your gel plates or pictures of your gel plates, such claims can’t operate scientifically. Could Uri Geller really bend spoons with his mind except when watched by professional magicians? Is God really talking to you and telling you to steal all the Voortman cookies from 7-11s?
What does “extending” the definition of science to include the unobservable do for us? In a nutshell, it means that nobody has to be able to replicate your results. That allows in astrology, homeopathy and a number of things that have been discounted by double-blind and other techniques for reproducing results. It’s useless. Some may counter that it’s “being fair”, but what it ends up doing is making objective truth a relative thing, and that’s the kind of post-modernist crap I think that people who complain about moral relativism should also be complaining about.
Note, though, that when intelligent design folks try to do more than just a capsule review (like Meyer’s paper, for example), they don’t actually rely on extending the definition of science. When they talk probabilities or irreducible complexity, that’s something that the current, operating definition of science can address.
Even though most intelligent design papers would not pass muster in peer review - any purported “prejudice” aside, they tend to make sweeping claims far greater than can be justified from the bodies of the paper (e.g. Dembski’s NFL and equating evolution with the otherwise-random search in the conclusion) and to ignore the most relevant recent papers that address the subject (e.g. Meyer’s prevalent use of old papers in the one review article Sternberg snuck into the journal) - there are often still scientists that do them the courtesy of a reply.
What it boils down to is that intelligent design proponents still have yet to show a strong case.
Now there are intelligent design journals that proponents have put together themselves, like ISCID. They should keep at this, to field ideas at one another and keep going at the very least until they have brought their game up sufficiently. The temptation will be at first to let each other “get away” with things in their papers, especially when the contributions are not so numerous, but they will have to be rigorous with each other before scientists are able to take them seriously. That’s not a matter of free speech, that’s a matter of professionalism. The worst thing that can be said of another scientist is “we’re having a lot of trouble duplicating their results”.
I also just quickly want to address (this is to others) this weird idea that Ben “must be on to something” because it “makes [Darwinists] mad”. This isn’t some sort of real-life Jack Chick tract. The ‘Darwinist’ reaction is the same sort of reaction Buzz Aldrin has to moon landing hoaxers. What on earth do you imagine biologists actually do from day to day? Why would you imagine regular working biologists not taking offense when their work and good names are being slandered by poor paper-writers who speak ill-informed diatribes against “materialists” when out of polite company? Ought not the rest of us be a little bit incensed on their behalf?
If you do good work at work, and a coworker talks smack about you to management, wouldn’t you be mad if management started to entertain their ideas? If you heard about this happening to a coworker, wouldn’t you still be mad?
Is this all just natural angst about “The Man”? Do you all just love conspiracy theories?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:23 am
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000602&p=8#000119
I present at the above link my response (6:11 September 24) to the tirade against me offered by Glen Davidson here in message 1122.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 24th, 2007 at 7:45 am
“Wow. So many people ABOVE are ridiculing Intelligent Design. What are they SCARED of???”
I believe that you have mistaken a recognition of a subject as non-scientific for a fear of that subject. However, the two are not synonymous. That there are those who recognize that Intelligent Design is not science is not an indicator that they fear Intelligent Design, or anything else in particular.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:54 am
“Was Lucy found as a complete skeleton at the same location?”
Lucy is not a complete skeleton. It is a relatively whole specimen, as fossil remains of Australopithecus afarensis go, but it is only 40% complete.
“If not how far apart were the piece parts found?”
Lucy was found in a single location. There have been claims that her knee joint was found several miles from the rest of the skeleton, but that is actually a creationist misrepresentation; a knee joint of another Australopithecus afarensis was found several miles from the location of the Lucy find, but that knee joint is a separate find, and was not part of the Lucy skeletal set. The origin of the misrepresentation was an interview with Donald Johanson where he was asked “How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?” and he replied that it was several kilometers away. A creationist noticed this snippet of the interview and failed to research further before incorrectly assuming that Johanson was referring to Lucy’s knee joint and then reporting his false assumption as fact. Other creationists have seized upon this false claim and repeated it further, all without doing any cursory research that would show the claim to be wrong.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“The reason I don’t respond to Dimensio, is because of his ignorance and closed mind. He refuses to look beyond Darwinism and will continually tell many they are wrong.”
Are you suggesting that I should not point out the errors that others have made? Should I then act as though demonstratably false claims are correct? I do not see how such a course of action would be rational.
Also, I should note that your continued use of the term “Darwinism” suggests a lack of understanding. The theory of evolution has been modified significantly since the time of Charles Darwin. Using the word “Darwinism” in reference to the theory of evolution is as incorrect as using the word “Newtonism” when discussing physics.
“As for the dating methods, this came into play because of the supposedly slow evolution of everything, which of course would have to take million and millions of years. But since slow evolution doesn’t have any support behind it, then the millions of years can be questioned as well.”
Actually, the ancient age of the earth was established before Darwin was even born. Geologists noted that the structure of the earth was inconsistent with a planet of an age suggested by those who had relied upon Bishop Usher’s calculation of approximately six-thousand years by the 18th century. A geologist in the 1790s estimated the age of the earth to be in the millions of years. Suggesting that an age of the earth outside of the scope of that stated by “young earth” creationists is a result of evolution suggests an unfamiliarity with history.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:59 am
“Karl Popper also indicated that Darwinism made no predictions and could not be tested independently, and is full of holes in its explanations…”
I believe that you have been deceived by a common misrepresentation of Popper’s statements. He did once express the sentiment that natural selection is only testable to a certain degree (and not, as you may her, that it is not testable at all), but he later reconsidered his position: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html
“It is still very much taught as the only theory…”
This is because there is no other explanation for extant biodiversity that has attained the status of theory.
September 24th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Actually Darwinian evolution is the only evolution with near universal support in biology, zoology, etc.
Random mutation and natural selection are the principal driving paradigms for purposed biological change in the genome and its subsequent multi-gene expression through the system to functionality.
Of course Remine has demonstrated academically that evolution explains nothing, predeicts nothing and natural selection is a tautology and a truism. There are many, many evolutionary postulates and supposed sub-paradigms. There is a cornucopia of explanations for every observable and one or more can be applied to the denial of the others (often in conflict)to explain any observation.
Evolution is a backward looking , non-predicting, multivariate curve fitting technique that can be instantaneously altered to explain anything observed.
Thus it is not a theory in the true sense and does not comport with historical science, properly applied.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
In response to the claim that Gonzales “brought in only $21,000 in grant money, whereas the average for others seeking tenure have brought in an average of $1.2 million in grants. It seems to me that he was just a low producer”. 1.2 million may be average (I doubt this but will assume it is for the sake of argument) but this statistic says little. What is the mode and medium? If 5 professors brought in less than $21,000 and they all were tenured, this puts the situation is a very different light. We need to know much more before a judgment can be made. If 4 people are in the department and one brought in 20 million, the rest none, the average is 5 million. If you were one of those who brought in nothing, I can argue “the average person in our department brought in 5 million and you brought in nothing, therefore we are going to deny you tenure”.
A more important point is whoever made this claim dose not know much about academia. No matter what your record, your opposer can claim “good reasons” for tenure denial. If you have more publications than anyone else in the department I can claim they are not in the “right journals” If you have 3 articles in Cell I can argue that you do not have a single article in Nature or Science, therefore are not qualified for tenure. If you have 3 articles in Nature I can claim that you have none in Cell so are not qualified. If you have 4 in Nature, 3 in Science and 5 in Cell, I can claim your service to the college is weak because you spent all your time in research. If you have a superior service record and an excellent publication record I can claim your teaching is only average. If service, teaching, research and publication areas are all clearly way above average, I can claim that your collegiality is weak (you spent all your time researching, publishing, and on service activities, but neglected socializing). Academics actually do this! Thus no matter what you do one can find good “reasons” to justify loss of tenure. Academics are often very dishonest in using slippery standards such as this that can justify getting rid of just about anybody. It did not take me long to realize the hypocrisy of it all when we all knew full well the real reason was you are not a Darwin Fundamentalist.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
“Karl Popper also indicated that Darwinism made no predictions and could not be tested independently, and is full of holes in its explanations…”
In response to:
“He did once express the sentiment that natural selection is only testable to a certain degree (and not, as you may her, that it is not testable at all), but he later reconsidered his position.”
Good point but why did he switch his position? I was acquainted with Popper and the fact is the campaign by dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists to get him recant his sin played no small role in his repentance.
September 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Just a note on Neanderthals:
A New Neandertal/Modern Human Fossil Hybrid?
Read article here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4750/
Also within this article:
” We do not often appreciate the enormous range of skeletal variation in modern humans. For example, Owen Lovejoy, a famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, studied 1,000 year old North American Indian bones and drew the following conclusion:
‘The Amerindian collection undoubtedly represents a population belonging to the species Homo sapiens, yet it includes many unusual bones that probably would have been assigned to a different species, or even a different genus, if they had been discovered as individual fossils…’
I added bold emphasis. Just to point out, had certain fossil remains been found individually and not as a whole, how they would have been classified. So, it does go to show how fossil fragments can very well be labeled wrong as predicted by an evolutionary paleoanthropologist. A fragment cannot tell a whole story.
So, I can conclude that fossil fragments that lead from ape to man (descending), can also be wrong as well. That it’s a matter of taking the data and making it fit an idea conjured up by man. If there were WHOLE fossils found that showed this transcending from one to another, it would be believable. But evolutionary paleoanthropologist state, that there aren’t any whole fossils showing such evolution. No transitional fossils at all. So, how can one accurately conclude a common ancestor at all?
~M
September 24th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Let the record show that thousands of words later, Glen Davidson still has not produced his credentials as a published student of organic evolution or of anything else for that matter. I can only assume he is just another cowardly blowhard from Panda’s Thumb. Like all schoolyard bullies he collapses when publicly challenged to put up or shut up. Well since he can’t put up why doesn’t he shut up? I will tell you why. It is because he is homozygous intellectual trash that is why.
How do you like them green apples Glen baby? I hope they give you gas followed by the runs.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 24th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I wrote, “Do you not know what materialism is? It is the doctrine that nothing exists but matter. No unchanging truths, no universal ethic, no transcendent values.”
Dimensio responded, “How, exactly, does your incorrect definition of materialism relate to the theory of evolution?”
Materialism means nothing exists but matter or those things that emerge from matter. What is it about “nothing” that you do not understand. If you have a different definition of materialism this would be the time to offer it. It would be a first.
There can be no unchanging truths if unchanging matter is all there is–that’s what the ism at the end of matter means. We are discussing the subject of MATERIALIST DARWINISM, not some nebulous idea of theistic evolution. The reason neo-Darwinism is inseparable from materialism is because Darwinists insist that it be that way.
I wrote, “Freedom is not won through fanciful wishing; it occurs only in a political environmment that acknowledges the reality of natural rights that are inalieable and unchanging. In your Darwinist-materialist world, only changing matter exists. Thus, there is no universal moral law or any “self evident truth that all men are created equal.”
Dimensio responded, “It would appear that you are under the impression that all who accept the theory of evolution are materialists. In addition to this not being true, you have also not accurately stated materialism. Might I suggest that you avoid using incorrect generalizations, as it does negatively impact the credibility of your claims.”
Please don’t be repetitious. You have already raised that issue. and you were unpersuasive.
I wrote, “Oh, that’s just great. I get to exercise my freedom of speech provided I am talented enough to write a book and lucky enough to get it published.”
Dimensio responded, ” no one has suggested any such restriction. You are drawing conclusions that are not logically derived from previous statements.
You are not serious here, right? That’s what this whole movie is about–unjustified restriction.
Dimensio wrote, “You are free to make any statement that you wish.”
I am not free to raise the issue of intelligent design in a science classroom. Please do not be repetitious.
I wrote, “Even when that happens, I had better be careful. Meet Professor Gonzalez at Iowa State, who dared write such a book at lost his tenure as a result.”
Dimensio responded, “Your statement is not correct. Professor Gonzalez did not “lose” his tenure. He was never granted tenure, and thus could not have lost it.”
I will happily clarify my statement to mean that he lost the opportunity for tenure. Please don’t be petty.
I wrote, “And speaking of science, what gives the Darwinist establishment the right to define science in such a way that a researcher may not explore anything other than natural laws? ”
Dimensio wrote, “Science is the study of the natural universe as a means of finding natural causes as an explanation for observed events. If non-natural causes are suggested as an explanation for observed events, the explanation is, by definition, not science.”
Apparently, you missed my point. The definition you just offered is the one I object to. Ignoring non-natural causes is not rational at a time when information theory has emerged as a significant factor in the life-science discipline.
Dimensio wrote, “Science operates under methodological naturalism.”
Again, please do not be repetitious.
I wrote, “The criteria for science don’t just fall out of the sky.”
Dimensio wrote, “This is correct. The standards and boundaries of science have been well-defined for centuries.”
Well, sort of. For centuries, science has studied what Aristotle used to call “material” and “efficient” causes while ignoring what he called “formal” and “final” causes. For two millenia before that, it included all four. With the advent of information theory, it is clear that we should resume studying all four. To leave out form and teleology on the grounds that “this is the way we have been doing it for a while” is irrational.
I wrote, “There are varying opinions about where the line of demarcation between science and non-science should be.”
Dimensio wrote, “While this is true, it should be noted that not all opinions on the subject are of equal merit.”
That is true; some ideas are better than others. That is why we should have a free and open exchange of ideas to find out which opinions are best. If neo-Darwinism was really the best idea, it advocates would not need to suppress alternative ideas.
I wrote, “Why should ID researchers knuckle under to the tyranny of narrow-minded materialists who define science in such an exclusionary way?”
Dimensio wrote, “If you are attempting to suggest that only “materialists” define science in such a way as to exclude non-natural causes, then you are mistaken. You should reconsider your premises, as your conclusions will be faulty if your starting assumptions are incorrect.”
There are a few Theistic evolutionists who propose a absentee God that set natural causes in motion. But they join Darwinists in employing the same methodological naturalism which rules out all but natural causes. No inferences about the effects of intelligence are allowed, even if warranted by the evidence. So the question about who all is involved in the anti-ID movement is irrelevant to the question of whay they are all so narrow-minded and oppressive.
I wrote, “Why should original thinkers be hampered by bureaucrats who happen to have established a cozy little community of true believers that closes ranks around dissenters?”
You wrote, “The methodology of science is not established to “close ranks around dissenters”. It exists as it does because it has proven itself to be a reliable means of obtaining results. If you are able to conceive of a means of including the supernatural while yeilding results as consistent and reliable as the current methodology of science, please present your claims.”
The methods you allude to have never proven “effective for obtaining results, except as a measure of micro-evolutionary changes over time. That has nothing to do with Darwinian macro evolution, which has given us nothing that we can use in any practical way. The term “supernatural” is irrelevant to science and to intelligent design. Intelligent design detects the presence of intelligent agency, nothing more. Please evaluate intelligent design for what it is, not for what it is not.
I wrote, “Why should those who pursue truth be marginalized by those who value survival and prestige over all other things?”
Dimensio wrote, “Your statements are thus far unsupported.”
Please be specific. Are you questioning the facts about the suppression which occurs daily? Are you questioning what Baylor did to Dr. Dembski are what it is now doing to Dr. Marks? Are you questioning what Iowa state did to Dr. Gonzalez? Are you questioning what is done to anyone in academia who even dares question the four holy tenets of Darwinism–time, chance, random mutation, and natural selection. If you want more examples, I can provide them.
Or, are you questioning the motives I attribute to those who do the oppressing? If you can provide a better explanation for why they do it, I would be open to it.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Karl Popper was a lightweight. It is a lot of nonsense about hypotheses being falsifiable or not. If an hypothesis is tested and verified it becomes a theory. If it can’t be verified it is useless and should be immediately discarded.
“An hypothesis does not stop being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi
By the way, DaveScot/David Springer, the biggest liar and bully in cyberspace is still pretending I am posting as himself. I ask that someone in a position to know, check the sources of our comments and remind us all of who the liar really is. Springer is for William Dembski what Glen Davidson and Alan Fox are for Wesley Elsberry and P.Z Myers, just another hired, unprincipled, ruthless, arrogant goon.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Materialists posit that random mutations are a probabilistic phenomenon but the multi-gene expression of the mutations in a so called favorable trait in an organism is the result of a deterministic physical screening process called natural selection operating through so-called selection pressures.
A reading of the literature illustrates these pressures:
Isolation by climatological epoche, catastrophic geophysical changes in terrain, natural predation (being in the wrong place at the wrong time), large scale disease, weather pattern changes impacting food sources, cosmic disturbances, etc.
All of these pressures are stochastic in nature and have resisted any attempt to predict their state, occurrence, detailed nature even the full range of variables. Surely the entire paradigm of NS and thus evolution is driven entirely by concatenated, mutually independent, and often mutually exclusive random processes.
The idea that such a multivariate pressure landscape could stay sufficiently invariant for long, long periods of time while some multigenerational engrainment of a feature or trait is established precisely by those pressures is preposterous on its face.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Re post #1455-
JBagail-
From the Des Moines Register - June 1, 2007:
Iowa State University has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Guillermo Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez’s peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure, which is basically a lifetime appointment at the university.
“Essentially, he had no research funding,” said Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the physics and astronomy department where Gonzalez is employed. “That’s one of the issues.”…
additionally, Gonzalez has not, to my knowledge, publicized the letter he was no doubt given explaining the reasons why he was denied tenure. He is free to do that, and not doing it suggests that it contained some good reasons.
One nasty common thread does appear regarding these “victims”: the fact that they are fellows with the Discovery Institute. So the problem doesn’t seem to be one of science, so much as religion. And not so much religion, but the promulgation of one narrow religious group, evangelical christianity, by the Discovery Institute.
It takes very little research to find out that one of the major initial backers and member of the board of directors of the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson Jr. - read up on him and the other wonderful organizations he supports, like the Arlington Group and the Chalcedon Foundation.
The Discovery Institute (and I fear that this upcoming movie as well) are not about science, and they are not about freedom. They are about advancing a very scary Dominionist agenda.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
GW said: “Don’t really understand the question, are you questioning who believes the earth revolves around the sun? (I believe we all do) or are you questioning the character and doctrine of those who do? (too open ended to answer)”
You said that “Evolutionists are militant, so-called intellectual elitists who will not tolerate any blasphemy of their doctrine”. My question is, do you have the same opinion of people who think the Earth goes around the sun? Because both groups are just espousing the view that all the evidence currently supports.
“I’ll stand by my evolutionists/Islam comparison. Since neither religion can be reasoned with without jihad breaking out.”
Except evolution isn’t a religion any more than, say, relativity is.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Tina said: “how do you explain the successfully autocratic nature of all organic life.”
Huh?
“(1)It is exactly the ‘eye’ design that allows us be able to read.”
All vertebrates have the same basic eye layout, but not all vertebrates can read. And what about Braille?
“Eye design is customised for this ‘emotional’ registration also.”
How so?
“3) Blind Spot? This not only makes us a little more cautious it relfects “intellectual” blind spots too.”
But you can only be more cautious if you are aware you have a blind spot. Unless you actively try to find your own, you won’t even notice it’s there, because your brain kind of fills in the hole. So kind of seems that instead of making you more cautious about lions lurking in the grass, your brain makes it worse because it prevents you from noticing that you even have anything to be cautious about!
“Once we show some respect for “design” details we will make scientific leaps in our understanding of this anomaly called HUMAN.”
Never mind the eyes then. Why are our spines not well-suited for walking upright? Why do many of us end up with more teeth (wisdom teeth) that can fit in our jaws? Why do we share a pathway for air and food that potentially lets us choke and die on the very stuff we need to live? Why do we have an appendix and a tailbone? Why does our reproductive system appear to be designed by Rube Goldberg?
September 24th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Richie Annand wrote, “Stephen, I find your views on ‘materialism’ very odd, especially with your implication of moral relativism, which is well and truly not the province of materialism, but cross-cuts religions and philosophies alike.”
The world of truth, justice, freedom, morality, or any other non-material reality is just that, non-material. Thus, if there are no unchanging, non-material realities that transcend the material world, which itself is always changing, there can be no unchanging non-material reality called morality. That only leaves the possibility of a changing relativistic morality, which is no morality at all. Only non-material realities can last, because only they are immune from physical corruption and decay.
Richie wrote, “Which religion espouses this? If you’re talking about the Judeo-Christian ethic, why was it okay once upon a time to slaughter the Canaanites, or the residents of Bethel? Why, in Jesus’ time, was it okay to own slaves? Why did Saul think that women should shut up in church? Why is heresy no longer punishable by death in civilized countries?”
Since you asked, only the Judeo Christian ethic recognizes the “inherent dignity of the human person.” No other thought system, atheistic, agnostic, or religious, holds that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and should, therefore, be treated accordingly. While many Christians or Jews have failed to uphold that ethic, as your examples show, that fact does not take away from the reality of the principle involved. Without this Judeo-Christian idea that we bear the imprint of God, there can be trans-material standard for freedom and morality.
Richie wrote, “Gonzalez didn”t lose tenure.”
That is correct. He lost the opportunity for tenure.
Richie wrote, “Why do you find the standards for science particularly onerous? It’s methodological naturalism. If a god or gods or aliens existed and could affect things, methodological naturalism can catch it.”
Well, no they could not. The point is to detect intelligent agency as well as natural laws. Intelligent design can do this; methodological naturalism cannot. Methodological naturalism assumes that the cause of any observaable phenomenon must be the result of either law or chance. ID advocates agree that this is often the case, but not always. Sometimes, it is important to find out if certain life forces were “engineered,” that way we can subject them to the principle of reverse engineering and learn more about them.
Methodological naturalism proceeds on the assumption that we should not be allowed to investigate these matters. It’s OK to hold that view, but it is not OK to act on it and persecute those who think differenctly. This is the age of information theory and Darwinist methologies cannot make sense out of this new life-science discipline. Somehow, they have decided it is better to dig their heels in and hang on to outdated research methods than to help usher in the new wave of progress. That is what all the fuss is about.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Marilyn said: “Many evolutionary scientists will state, there are no transitional fossils.”
Interesting. Can you name some?
“I have researched much about Darwinism, what it lacks, and how ID and Creation hold more viable facts than Darwinism.”
So you must have a PhD in Biology then, right?
“Common sense and logic will tell you , things do look designed.”
Really? Is a snowflake designed? Is a salt crystal designed? They sure look like it! What objective test can you make to tell whether something was designed or not?
“And to think that everything evolved from one common ancestor is not feasible at all. There is no evidence to support that at all. None.”
There’s quite a lot, actually.
“I agree, we are One Nation under God. When I was in grade school, we used to say the Pledge of Allegiance. But, because God is in it, it is no longer allowed, and it is supposed to be patriotic. Where is our patriotism? Because of one word “God”? we are suppose to suppress that too?”
“Under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. And the original was written over 60 prior by a Baptist minister!
“It seems the freedom of speech is going in a downward spiral because of Darwinism. And Darwinism is a big part of suppression of freedom of speech, thought, and open mindedness.”
Is the theory of relativity a suppression of speech? The germ theory of disease? Quantum mechanics? Atomic theory?
“How can they compete when Darwinism will not allow them to compete?”
They are completely allowed to compete. No one’s stopping them. The trouble is, they don’t want to play by the rules of the game. You have to compete in the game of science. That means you have to have a testable hypothesis. You have to go out and look for evidence, and not just evidence that supports your idea. The ID believers are like people who want to play baseball but demand that they get five strikes instead of three.
“They do explain the facts equally well, if not better, but because of their facts, Darwinism pretty much goes down the drain.”
If anyone could produce some hard facts that sent evolution down the drain, I guarantee you they would win at least the Nobel prize.
“Scientists have dated it to be millions of years old when it was known to say only be 20 years old, as from the lava rock for example from St. Helens.”
I know you hate talk.origins, but read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
“And I thank God for our service people, who without all those that fought and still fight for our country and our freedom, we wouldn’t have it. And many of those service people who fight for your freedom and your freedom to speak, believe in God. Are you a Darwinist going to tell them they are a matter of molecules only and are wrong in their belief in having God in their life?”
Repeat after me: Evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
StephenB said: “Do you not know what materialism is? It is the doctrine that nothing exists but matter. No unchanging truths, no universal ethic, no transcendent values.
In your Darwinist-materialist world, only changing matter exists. Thus, there is no universal moral law or any “self evident truth that all men are created equal.””
Evolution doesn’t say anything about morality or ethics (other than explain, perhaps, why we have them). Whether a scientific theory is true or not has no bearing on whether society thinks it’s wrong to, for example, kick puppies. Atomic theory says that we are all just made up of a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons, held together by electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force, but nobody complains it upsets our morality.
“Oh, that’s just great. I get to exercise my freedom of speech provided I am talented enough to write a book and lucky enough to get it published.”
You can publish it yourself, but yes, if you expect to challenge 150 years of painstaking biological research and overturn a well-established theory overnight, then you need be talented enough in the field to produce some extraordinary evidence.
“And speaking of science, what gives the Darwinist establishment the right to define science in such a way that a researcher may not explore anything other than natural laws? Science has been defined many different ways throughout history.”
Not really. Science deals with the natural. Either the Intelligent Designer (whatever it is) is a supernatural being and is therefore scientifically untestable, or it did it’s work through some natural process which we should be able to investigate.
“Why should ID researchers knuckle under to the tyranny of narrow-minded materialists who define science in such an exclusionary way?”
Why should poker players who want extra cards be excluded from those big-name tournaments?
“Why should original thinkers be hampered by bureaucrats who happen to have established a cozy little community of true believers that closes ranks around dissenters? Why should those who pursue truth be marginalized by those who value survival and prestige over all other things?”
None of this is happening. Original thinking is great, but you have to be able to test your ideas. Finding out the truth is also great, provided you can demonstrate a reason to think that it the truth.
September 24th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
1459 - Jean Schoon Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
” Do as I suggested on this site previously. Do your own research or experiment. Ask the One who is in question.
Ask God if He exists, not just once, but continue this for a period of time that is equal to scientific research. ”
Dear Jean
God didn’t respond to Mother Teresa….but he responded to you!
I guess god likes you better!!
Maybe Mother Teresa prayed to the wrong god…..there are so many so she must have been confused.
Could you give us a few tips on how to contact the real god?
Thanks
Andy
September 24th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
” I was acquainted with Popper and the fact is the campaign by dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists to get him recant his sin played no small role in his repentance.”
You are suggesting that Popper changed his stance in response to pressure, and not as a result of an actual change of mind. Can you provide evidence to support this assertion?
September 24th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
The Greeks worked hard to identify divine principles. Part of that pursuit helped them identify the Golden Triangle.
I see that we’re on the brink of identifying the Golden Hexahedron.
For all who reject design possiblities because of association to an intelligent creator — the truth doesn’t require believers to validate its reality. Our insignificant understanding is dwarfed by its inconcievable magnificance. How pompus are we to assume that our paltry human senses (which according to some is the result of chance anyway) are sufficient to receive let alone concieve its incomprehensible significance?
Here’s my challenge: buy a ticket on Neo-Darwinian airlines. It takes just as much courage to trust your life to anything engineered by accident, as it does to continue a belief in the principles themselves.
Fundamental models either stand up across all dimensions of application or they are flawed and open for challenge.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I haven’t been reading much of Dimensio’s proclamations - just wondering, has he or one of the other Darwin Fundamentalists responded to GW’s comments in #1400? Seems to me he succinctly nailed the fundamental problem with the Evolution argument. I’d be interested in reading any responses, but I’d rather not fish through reams of empty diatribe to find it.
September 24th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Craig in response: Our eyes are designed to respond to visual input in a way that is perculiar to humans only -
we need to respond using two primary motivators -EMOTION and INTELLECT - the eye will register and convey the relavent responses perculiar to each individual. Our very consciousness arises from the combination of the above-mentioned emotion and intellect. Non-human life has but one primary motivator - INSTINCT(unified emotion & intellect) and does not have to anguish, moralise and deliberate…it just lives to the full! I could go on but……..!
September 25th, 2007 at 12:17 am
One of the cornerstones of my PEZ philosophy is that psychology recapitulates monotony. I love it so! I see that Spravid Dinger is still posting his childish screeds. He’s the biggest bully on the supermation info-highways. Just kidding Dave, we’ll always have that night in Waco - what a bottle of single malt! David, contact me by electronic emails if you wish to discuss my paper or use them in uncommon descent.
If I’m, descended from monkeys, why are there STILL monkeys?
THINK ABOUT IT.
“We’ll be back with the recrap after this message.”
- Ralph Kiner, Mets sportscaster
September 25th, 2007 at 1:52 am
“No intelligence allowed” is absolutely right! As a scientist and an academic, I have witnessed firsthand the kind of mainstream intellectual arrogance and repression of ideas that this film describes. No, I am not an IDer nor have I been the victim of intellectual suppression of my ideas, but as an observant objective thinking person, I have to admit that such repression exists widely, both inside and outside of the academy. True academic freedom is a myth on many university campuses. Don’t believe that our society is full of closed-minded biased mainstream thinkers? Just read some of comments on this blog! Q.E.D.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:59 am
This is for DaveScot/David Spinger.
Contrary to your typically mindless, lying, unfounded assertions (#1445), I AM carrying on research at present. If all goes as I hope, it will be published in a refereed journal when it is complete. Since I already have three solo authored papers in SCIENCE, that is probably where I will senf it.
I am stll waiting for evidence that I have ever impersonated the biggest bully in cyberspace, here or anywhere else. Let’s hear it from an unbiased source.
“A past evolution is undeniable. a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 25th, 2007 at 7:09 am
If evolution is true, then there is no purpose and meaning in life.
Then why is so much outrage expoused by pro-evolutionists in this blog over a subject that is meaningless and without purpose?
You are getting callouses on your finger tips over nothing.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:26 am
In reply to Benjamin J
“Iowa State University has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Guillermo Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez’s peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure. “Essentially, he had no research funding,” said Eli Rosenberg, chairman of the physics and astronomy department where Gonzalez is employed”.
If all professors were denied tenure for not securing more than 1.3 million dollars, 99 percent would not get tenure. Most received none or very little research funding. With one half million professors in the US if each got 1.3 million, the nation would be broke in a few years. Aside from this, the department at Iowa State has no guidelines about a certain dollar amount of funding required for tenure. And, last, it is usually senior researchers who get most of the funding. For junior untenured researchers such as Gonzalez to receive much funding at all is very unusual. This post is just one more example of the dishonesty of Darwin Fundamentalists. Also, see the post above by Jenny
September 25th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Poast # 1469 Jenny Says:
“Good point but why did he switch his position? I was acquainted with Popper and the fact is the campaign by dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists to get him recant his sin played no small role in his repentance.”
What evidence do you have to back this statement? I’ve heard this same story from many creationists but have never seen anything to back it up. The only thing that can be validate so far is that he recanted his doubts on evolution after it was explained to him that there was more to the theory than he originally understood.
Popper said, “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).
If you have something to verify your point please enlighten me!
~Atomic Chimp
September 25th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“Materialism means nothing exists but matter or those things that emerge from matter. What is it about “nothing” that you do not understand. If you have a different definition of materialism this would be the time to offer it. It would be a first.”
I am not disputing your fundamental definition of materialism. I am disputing the conclusions that you have derived from this definition. I am also disputing the relevance of materialism to the current discussion.
“There can be no unchanging truths if unchanging matter is all there is–that’s what the ism at the end of matter means.”
Your suggestion is not a logical conclusion. There can, in fact, exist “unchanging truths” even if matter — and energy — is all that exists. The fundamental properties of the universe could be an “unchanging truth”. That matter (and energy) are all that exist could be an unchanging truth.
“We are discussing the subject of MATERIALIST DARWINISM, not some nebulous idea of theistic evolution.”
Your use of the word “DARWINISM” suggests that you are unfamiliar with the actual subject of the theory of evolution. Referring to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” is as incorrect as referring to the laws of physics as “Newtonism” or referring to the theory of relativity as “Einsteinism”. Moreover, the current discussion relates to the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design. You have introduced the extraneous concept of materialism.
” The reason neo-Darwinism is inseparable from materialism is because Darwinists insist that it be that way.”
In addition to using an incorrect and archaic term to refer to the theory of evolution, you have also confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. All scientific studies employ methodological naturalism. This is a limitation of science, not an insistence of the theory of evolution.
“Please don’t be repetitious. You have already raised that issue. and you were unpersuasive.”
That you refuse to accept reality does not make your claims correct.
“You are not serious here, right? That’s what this whole movie is about–unjustified restriction.”
I am serious. If you disagree, please demonstrate that any actual suppression of speech has occurred.
“I am not free to raise the issue of intelligent design in a science classroom. Please do not be repetitious.”
Your objection is not rational. Why should you be “free” to raise a non-science issue in a science classroom? Do you also find it objectionable that you are not able to bring up the issue of Irish poetry in a Calculus classroom?
“I will happily clarify my statement to mean that he lost the opportunity for tenure. Please don’t be petty.”
Please demonstrate that Gonzalez’s inability to receive tenure was primarily a result of his acceptance of Intelligent Design.
“Apparently, you missed my point. The definition you just offered is the one I object to. Ignoring non-natural causes is not rational at a time when information theory has emerged as a significant factor in the life-science discipline.”
Please justify your assertion, and explain why science should be modified to include non-natural causes, rather implementing a different methodology that already allows for non-natural causes. Also explain exactly how science can be adapted to include non-natural causes.
“Again, please do not be repetitious.”
Then please do not repeat objections founded fundamentally upon a desire to alter a well-elstablished process.
“Well, sort of. For centuries, science has studied what Aristotle used to call “material” and “efficient” causes while ignoring what he called “formal” and “final” causes. For two millenia before that, it included all four. With the advent of information theory, it is clear that we should resume studying all four. To leave out form and teleology on the grounds that “this is the way we have been doing it for a while” is irrational.”
Please justify your assertion, and explain exactly how the scientific method can be adapted to include non-natural causes. Be specific; explain how non-natural causes can be deduced and tested objectively.
“That is true; some ideas are better than others. That is why we should have a free and open exchange of ideas to find out which opinions are best.”
This is why peer review is used in science. If Intelligent Design advocates have research that sufficiently applies scientific methodology, they may submit their research for peer review.
“If neo-Darwinism was really the best idea, it advocates would not need to suppress alternative ideas.”
You have yet to demonstrate that any such “suppression” has occurred. In fact, your continued use of the incorrect term “Darwinism” suggests that your research on this subject has been limited.
“There are a few Theistic evolutionists who propose a absentee God that set natural causes in motion.”
This is not relevant; as “God” is not a part of any scientific inquiry.
“But they join Darwinists in employing the same methodological naturalism which rules out all but natural causes.”
This is true of all of scientific investigation. The scientific method is a process for deriving natural causes as an explanation for observed natural phenomenon. These natural causes are deduced from observation of extant natural mechanisms That is the purpose of science. A methodology that seeks to employ supernatural causes as an explanation for events is not science, even if that methodology ultimately leads to correct answers.
“No inferences about the effects of intelligence are allowed, even if warranted by the evidence.”
Are you suggesting that evidence “warrants” such inferences? If so, please justify such a claim.
“So the question about who all is involved in the anti-ID movement is irrelevant to the question of whay they are all so narrow-minded and oppressive.”
You have yet to demonstrate actual oppression.
“The methods you allude to have never proven “effective for obtaining results, except as a measure of micro-evolutionary changes over time.”
I am referring to the results of the scientific method in general, not merely as applied to the theory of evolution. The scientific method has yielded useful results in the field of computer technology, the automotive industry, medicine and many other fields. Moreover, your suggestion that application of the scientific method with respect to the study of the origins of biodiversity is demonstratably false. The scientific method has been applied to the currently established theory of evolution to predict the locations of fossils yet to be discovered (at the time of the prediction; the predictions then panned out) and to predict patterns of ERV insertions in DNA across species in patterns consistent with established lineages of descent.
“That has nothing to do with Darwinian macro evolution, which has given us nothing that we can use in any practical way.”
As I said, I was referring to the scientific method in general, not merely as it applies to the theory of evolution. Moreover, your continued use of the incorrect term “Darwinian” suggests that your research on the subject is insufficient for your claims to be considered credible.
” The term “supernatural” is irrelevant to science and to intelligent design. Intelligent design detects the presence of intelligent agency, nothing more. Please evaluate intelligent design for what it is, not for what it is not.”
I have evaluated “Intelligent Design” for what it is. I understand that “Intelligent Design” posits that all extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry that diversified over time through natural selection and modification in descent, as stated by the theory of evolution. It also posits that certain biological structures could not have emerged through evolution, and thus speculates that a “designer” of unknown origin and motive used unspecified methodology to implement “designed” structures at key points in the emergence of certain species.
With the above definition, Intelligent Design fails to be an adequate explanation for multiple reasons. The first is that the “conclusion” of an Intelligent Designer is not a logical derivation of the evidence. Proponents of Intelligent Design suggest that a “Designer” is the only logical explanation for observations that cannot be explained without a non-intelligent cause, however this assumes that they have established and ruled out every possible non-intelligent cause. This requires that they understand all of the fundamental properties of the universe. As they cannot do this, their conclusion is ultimately a non-sequitur. A “designer” must be inferred from positive evidence of the design, not from a lack of evidence of a non-intelligent cause, as it is possible that there exists a non-intelligent cause that has simply not yet been considered.
It should also be noted that many, if not all, of the examples of biological structures that allegedly could not have emerged without design have been refuted.
The second reason that Intelligent Design fails to be an adequate scientific explanation is that it deliberately avoids proposing an actual mechanism. A scientific explanation uses known extant mechanisms as a means of explaining observed events. The theory of evolution, for example, employs the observed fact of organisms making imperfect copies of themselves (reproduction) as one of the mechanisms of the process. Intelligent Design does not employ any known mechanism. All that is said about the process is that it is “designed”. This, however, is not an actual mechanism. To “design” something is to plan its implementation, but it says nothing regarding the means by which the implementation is ultimately carried out. Analogies have been made between allegedly Intelligently Designed biological structures and human-built structures but unless those who employ these analogies are stating that the physical means by which biological features are designed is exactly the same as the physical means by which humans “design” structures — and I have yet to encounter a proponent who will agree with such an equivocation — then the analogy is invalid.
I wrote, “Why should those who pursue truth be marginalized by those who value survival and prestige over all other things?”
Dimensio wrote, “Your statements are thus far unsupported.”
“Please be specific. Are you questioning the facts about the suppression which occurs daily?”
To what specific suppression do you refer?
“Are you questioning what Baylor did to Dr. Dembski are what it is now doing to Dr. Marks?”
Are you referring to Baylor’s actions following Dembski’s unauthorized establishment of an “Intelligent Design” think tank, using the University’s name on the project without going through the proper channels for setting up such a center?
“Are you questioning what Iowa state did to Dr. Gonzalez?”
Yes. You have thus far not demonstrated that Dr. Gonzalez has been denied tenure solely as a result of his advocacy of Intelligent Design — or even that his advocacy was a contributing factor.
“Are you questioning what is done to anyone in academia who even dares question the four holy tenets of Darwinism–time, chance, random mutation, and natural selection. If you want more examples, I can provide them.”
Then please do so. Your continued use of the phrase “Darwinism” strongly suggests that you have not adequately researched the subject.
“Or, are you questioning the motives I attribute to those who do the oppressing? If you can provide a better explanation for why they do it, I would be open to it.”
Until you can demonstrate adequate oppression, your claims of motive are irrelevant.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Even though you are long gone, I promise to keep your dream alive. I shall not have a God be before you. I state this day that I shall do my best to keep Darwinism evolution alive. My faith lies within the imagination of men. If Darwinism evolution should be found out to be a big hoax, what a tragedy that would be. Without the ACLU behind us, we would have been long gone decades ago.
Signed,
A diehard Darwinian
September 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I pledge allegiance to Darwin’s origin on life
No questions to be asked from the whole universe,
Of the big hoax for which it stands:
We are one Nation under Darwinism no matter what,
With suppression of minds and lack of free inquiry for all.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
StephenB, could you please explain to me what relevance an ‘unchanging non-material reality called morality’, or absolute truth/morality as most Creationist put it, has to do with teaching ID in schools or the validity or Evolution.
IT would appear that you are saying that evolution cannot be true since we would not have the absolute morals of today’s society. Your observation is not correct, the morals of today and through out history more consistently demonstrate that they are not absolute. Please supply evidence to support your assertion.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 25th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Craig Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Marilyn said: “Many evolutionary scientists will state, there are no transitional fossils.”
“Interesting. Can you name some?”
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
“I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.” (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny
“It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms.” (Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230)
“Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)
“There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multi-cellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” (Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Book Publishers, Santee, California, 1988, p. 45)
“Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing.” (Quoted in W. R. Bird, _The Origin of Species Revisited_ [Nashville: Regency, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1987], 1:62-63)
“The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms.” (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641)
“It should come as no surprise that it would be extremely difficult to find a specific fossil species that is both intermediate in morphology between two other taxa and is also in the appropriate stratigraphic position.” (Cracraft, J., “Systematics, Comparative Biology, and the Case Against Creationism,” 1983, p. 180)
“Most families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors.” (Eldredge, N., 1989, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, p. 22)
“Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. …If any event in life’s history resembles man’s creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants.” (Bengtson, Stefan, “The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle,” Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766)
“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.” (Raup, David M., “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
“The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record.” (Williamson, Peter G., “Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism,” Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)
“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. …The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., “Cordelia’s Dilemma,” Natural History, 1993, p. 15)
“One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin’s time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms.” (Brouwer, A., “General Paleontology,” [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)
“The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places.” (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)
“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Urey, Harold C., quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4)
“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (H.J. Lipson, F.R.S. Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, “A physicist looks at evolution” Physics Bulletin, 1980, vol 31, p. 138)
“I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.” (Wolfgang, Smith, “The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality” in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)
“Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance.” (Rubin, Harry, “Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance” in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)
“The geological record has provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes.” (Norman, J., A History of Fishes, 1963, p. 298)
September 25th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Craig said: “Really? Is a snowflake designed? Is a salt crystal designed? They sure look like it! What objective test can you make to tell whether something was designed or not?”
Read article The Key Issue: Patterns vs. Designs
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm
Craig said: ”“Under God” wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. And the original was written over 60 prior by a Baptist minister!”
And your point is? I don’t think this info matters to our service people or their families.
Craig said: “They are completely allowed to compete. No one’s stopping them.”
I believe that’s the purpose of this documentary by Ben Stein. Big Science Darwinism is stopping them.
The trouble is, they don’t want to play by the rules of the game.”
This states Darwinism quite well
“You have to compete in the game of science.”
I will say again, I believe that’s what this documentary is all about, competition outside of Darwinism is NOT allowed.
”That means you have to have a testable hypothesis.”
Someone must inform the Darwinian evolutionists of this statement.
”You have to go out and look for evidence, and not just evidence that supports your idea.”
Darwinians are still looking for the evidence, and what they do have they misuse it by default of imagination in support of their fantasy.
“The ID believers are like people who want to play baseball but demand that they get five strikes instead of three.”
The Darwinians are bully’s of the ball field.
Craig said: “I know you hate talk.origins, but read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html”
Yes, such an awesome site for obtaining material for science fiction stories.
~M
“The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.” (Millikan, Robert A., Nashville Banner, August 7, 1925, quoted in Brewer’s lecture)
September 25th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Wow, DImensio keep up the ownage! I love how you have completely exposed every logical fallacy that has been popping up here, good job - Carl Sagan would be proud.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Andy, tip number one for contacting the real God is having a desire to contact Him. You quite obviously do not. Nor do you have the smallest scintilla of understanding about Mother Teresa. Your ignorance and spiritual insanity have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of whether or not billions of people have had contact with this God. You Andy, are simply a colorblind person ridiculing the rest of us for believing in red. But you have plenty of pleasant company in the rest of the tone-deaf Darwinists who simply refuse to listen to the music of the spheres, and then turn around and accuse others of auditory hallucinations. Such a state of being is its own punishment. There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your cramped little philosophy.
Moreover, in your foolishness and philosophical/metaphysical naivete, you regard God as the conclusion of an argument rather than primary data for most of humanity. You are like the folks in Plato’s cave, who sit in darkness and think that shadows are the primary reality, ridiculing those who’ve seen the world outside.
Other than that, you’re probably a pretty nice guy, who just comes across as an ass in internet comments. I’ll let that slide. It happens to all of us.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
John A. Davison said:
“If I’m, descended from monkeys, why are there STILL monkeys?”
You are not descended from monkeys, you have a common ancestor with monkeys.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“I pledge allegiance to Darwin’s origin on life”
Darwin never speculated formally on the origin of life. Had you actually researched the subject, you would know this.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“If evolution is true, then there is no purpose and meaning in life.”
Your claim is false. The theory of evolution cannot be used to logically conclude that “there is no meaning and purpose in life”. Your statement suggests that you have not actually researched the subject.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“What observable mechanism does evolution have to offer?”
Evolution employs the observed events of imperfect replication, the passing of alterations in physiology to offspring and the observed event of environments lending to improved reproductive success for subsets of these inherited physiological differences as mechanisms in explaining extant biodiversity.
“Or what “known” extant design mechanism can evolution theorists produce?”
Evolution suggests no “design”, thus it needs offer no “design mechanism”.
“Using the scientific method can this mechanism be observed or reproduced?”
The mechanisms employed by the theory of evolution have been observed and they are rather readily reproduced.
“(Not talking about adaptation within a species, but transitional forms between species. Please document.)”
Speciation is not a mechanism. Speciation is a consequence of the mechanism of evolution occuring in such a way so as to create significant genetic distinction between two once genetically identical populations. Speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
“My arguement is not for ID here, but I am seeking for someone to explain why Evolution is “science”… and not religion.”
Evolution meets the requirements of the scientific method. Why would you believe it to be religion?
September 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“I haven’t been reading much of Dimensio’s proclamations - just wondering, has he or one of the other Darwin Fundamentalists responded to GW’s comments in #1400?”
I had missed posting #1400, but I have addressed it now that you have noted it.
“Seems to me he succinctly nailed the fundamental problem with the Evolution argument.”
I fail to see any problems highlighted in posting #1400. In fact, the questions raised in that posting have been asked and addressed previously.
“I’d be interested in reading any responses, but I’d rather not fish through reams of empty diatribe to find it.”
Then your claim of interest must be heavily exaggerated. As I quote the text of all to whom I respond, you can find a response that I have made to any posting by searching on a text string from that posting.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
“Good point but why did he switch his position? I was acquainted with Popper and the fact is the campaign by dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists to get him recant his sin played no small role in his repentance.”
What evidence do you have to back this statement?
Conversations with some of those in the inner circle. I worked with some of his colleagues. Also, I did some work with Sir John Eccles who was a Darwin Skeptic. You should read some of the books by John Eccles who co-authored a book on the brain with Popper. I think Popper got his first conclusion in part from Eccles.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Jenny wrote,” I was acquainted with Popper and the fact is the campaign by dogmatic Darwin Fundamentalists to get him recant his sin played no small role in his repentance.”
Dimensio responded, “You are suggesting that Popper changed his stance in response to pressure, and not as a result of an actual change of mind. Can you provide evidence to support this assertion”
If Jenny knew Karl Popper, she is providing personal testimony about his communication with her. In any court of law, that would be called evidence.
Do you have any evidence that she has beared false witness in the past, or even on this thread? If not, what is your point in asking if she has any evidence?
September 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
#1486 is by an imposter of course, most probably David Springer. If the management here cannot identify and deal with imposters it should abandon this attempt at serious discussion.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Craig said, “Evolution doesn’t say anything about morality or ethics (other than explain, perhaps, why we have them).”
Oh, but it does. Darwins concept of natural selection provides the philosophical foundation for the coldest ethic of them all–”survival of the fittest.” It’s an updated version of the of old Sophistic notion of “might makes right.” If you like, I will provide examples and events from unprincipled leaders who applied that ethic as a standard for governance. It isn’t pretty, and you will recognize all the names.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Ben,
Add Steve Bitterman (look him up) to the list of College people fired for their view point…
Oh, wait, this is only about Christians that have been fired for trashing science, not about open points of view.
-AR
September 25th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Marilyn said,
“I have researched much about Darwinism, what it lacks, and how ID and Creation hold more viable facts than Darwinism.”
Are you sure, Marilyn? How do you conduct this research of yours? What natural history museums have you visited lately? As I recall, you hadn’t even read the National Geographic articles you mentioned, and one was a direct link to the entire article! And, as it turned out, they didn’t say what you claimed they said. The creationist spin on them that you copied and posted was very deceptive.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Beano said:
“has he or one of the other Darwin Fundamentalists responded to GW’s comments in #1400? Seems to me he succinctly nailed the fundamental problem with the Evolution argument. I’d be interested in reading any responses, but I’d rather not fish through reams of empty diatribe to find it.”
I read the GW’s question, but I wasn’t sure what (s)he was asking for. I’ll take a crack though.
GW said:
“What observable mechanism does evolution have to offer? Or what “known” extant design mechanism can evolution theorists produce?”
Random mutation plus selection (natural or otherwise) plus competition for limited resources?
“(Not talking about adaptation within a species, but transitional forms between species. Please document.)”
Here’s where I get confused. A “transitional form between species” is… another species. All species are transitional.
If you’re asking for evidence of “macroevolution”, then there’s a bunch at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
They cite all the sources at the bottom, so if you think talk.origins is junk, you can look up the original information yourself.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Ben, you have massive guts, man. Massive kahunas, is what they would say at my highschool. More power to you. Thank you for taking a hit for freedom. I hope you get my favorite quote from Richard Dawkins on your documentary:
Bill Moyers: “Has evolution been observed?”
Richard Dawkins: “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
Uh, right, Richard. In other words, it hasn’t been observed.
“Did you witness the crime?” “Yes, your honor, just not while it was happening.” Huh?
The world’s greatest atheist advocate cannot admit the truth that evolution hasn’t been observed. So he’s forced to use Clintonesque rhetoric.
So somehow something that has (1) never been observed and (2) cannot be replicated in a lab despite almost a century of trying, is SCIENTIFIC FACT, and somehow it DISPROVES GOD. Impressive, for something that’s never been observed.
Go to it, Ben. More power to you.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Why is it that a scientist can look at a rock and determine that an intelligent being chipped it into an arrowhead, but then he looks in his microscope to continually observe and record the magnificent designs of mini-factories,intricate machinery, and language far superior than mans current technology is able to duplicate, only to then insist its just random acts of nature?…………..denial?
September 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Tina said:
“Craig in response: Our eyes are designed to respond to visual input in a way that is perculiar to humans only -”
But that’s not true. All vertebrates have more or less the same kind of eyes that humans do. We might get more usage out of them for communication purposes, but if you take them apart, they’re all pretty much the same.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
Please explain your questions. To what “implications” do you refer?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Evening Beaglelady,
No, I haven’t been to a natural history museum lately. I wouldn’t mind seeing the history of lions, tigers and bears…oh my. But, I don’t think I’d be able to keep a straight face passing the evolution crap they may have on display.
Have you visited a Creation Museum lately? You should, a lot of history there as well.
Darwinism evolution is very deceptive and rather humorous if you think about it. Well, I find humor in it. More like science fiction than fact.
And, my apologies, guess I should have researched that article before posting and not taken it at face value. But a lot is taken at face value in re: Darwinism evolution, I’d say, the whole common ancestor thing is a big hoax, and how gullible that ppl actually believe it without a question. Had you actually studied these transitional fossils firsthand, and did you actually - after long hours, months, years, etc. of studying these transitional fossils come to an accurate conclusion that man and ape are related in any way? Or have you just merely read and accepted words from an evolutionist who interprets the data to fit his imagination? Admired his imaginary drawings?
It’s my understanding, there are fossil fragments only. And as I wrote in a previous post (#1470);
Also within that article:
“Owen Lovejoy, a famous evolutionary paleoanthropologist, studied 1,000 year old North American Indian bones and drew the following conclusion:
‘The Amerindian collection undoubtedly represents a population belonging to the species Homo sapiens, yet it includes many unusual bones that probably would have been assigned to a different species, or even a different genus, if they had been discovered as individual fossils…’
I find that above statement interesting. Makes one wonder how much has actually been misinterpreted as far as ape to man transition?
Everyone should do research on all subjects and ideas.
Natural history is fine for the known, but for the unknown (dinosaurs, oozepool, life from non-life, etc) cannot be predicted, especially when the data derives from fantasy.
~M
September 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“Oh, but it does.”
You are incorrect. It does not.
“Darwins concept of natural selection provides the philosophical foundation for the coldest ethic of them all–”survival of the fittest.””
“Survival of the fittest” is an oversimplification of the means by which biological systems function as a result of evolution. Not only is it not a fully accurate description of the process, but it is a statement of occurrence, not a justification or statement of how society “should” operate.
“It’s an updated version of the of old Sophistic notion of “might makes right.””
This is also false. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, describes an aspect of the universe. It is not, and cannot be, proscriptive or prescriptive. Attempting to derive moral constructs from scientific theories requires an application of philosophy, and when that is done, the derived moral constructs are ultimately a product of the philosophy, not the scientific theory.
It is impossible to directly derive any moral conclusions from the theory of evolution.
“If you like, I will provide examples and events from unprincipled leaders who applied that ethic as a standard for governance. It isn’t pretty, and you will recognize all the names.”
I am familiar with many of the leaders who have committed atrocities that creationists have attributed to “application” of the theory of evolution. In all cases, not one creationist has been able to demonstrate that the atrocities of these leaders is an actual logical application of the theory of evolution. They cannot demonstrate such a connection, because it is impossible to use any scientific theory — evolution included — as a justification for any chosen action.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
# Dimensio Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I said; “I pledge allegiance to Darwin’s origin on life”
Dimensio said; “Darwin never speculated formally on the origin of life. Had you actually researched the subject, you would know this.”
Dimensio, where is your sense of humor?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
“If Jenny knew Karl Popper, she is providing personal testimony about his communication with her. In any court of law, that would be called evidence.”
Jenny’s statement is an anecdote. Her statement alone is not evidence that her claim is correct.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
“Conversations with some of those in the inner circle. I worked with some of his colleagues.”
Are you saying that your claim regarding Popper is unsourced hearsay?
September 25th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Stephen -> If the ideals to which you refer (truth, justice, etc.) really had an idealized, separate, unalterable existence and you had a means of discovering them, that would be fantastic. You could wave it in the faces of all sects and creeds (and Fred Phelps’ purulent face) and have the argument over at last.
As it stands, though, regardless of divine inspiration, agreement on how much revenge, how much understanding, how much restitution, how much required proof of guilt and how much “let the Maker deal with them” comprises even such a seemingly simple ideal as justice is squabbled over by every creed.
Is war moral? Is dancing?
If you go past moral absolutism, there really is a lot more moral thinking and philosophy out there, and it has greatly improved over the past few hundred years. If you truly hold the idea that “materialism” is an actual moral framework in and of itself that people hold so that they can do things like murder scot-free, then you have a lot of investigation you need to do before attempting to re-assert that claim.
That said, I’m certainly pretty pleased at the sort of things you hold as ideals, like the dignity of human beings, which makes it sound to me like you’re a pretty upstanding person in a lot of moral frameworks, so I’ll skip the rest of the tirade comparing materialism, moral relativism and scripture for another time (though we can return to it if you like)
Methodological naturalism also comes into play in detection of intelligence, whether it be archaeology or SETI. The papers written by Intelligent Design advocates are set to work within methodological naturalism as well, because they aim to conclude that known processes are insufficient, opening the door to other explanations. Theoretically, you should be able to take the conclusions of those papers and apply them to the world around you.
That said, the papers contain certain mistakes, in ignoring relevant literature (which can be forgiven only to a certain extent) but worse, in failing to properly tie their hypothesis through their experiment to their conclusions. Any particular experiment can only tell you so much, and you may casually, but not scientifically, draw conclusions beyond that.
Dembski does a probability rundown in his No Free Lunch paper, for example, and concludes that extra information is required on top of a random search to zoom in on any target. He concludes from this that evolution requires extra input from ’some other source’. However, what he fails to do is tie his “random search space” to evolution - this kind of “search” would make it nearly impossible for cats to give birth to kittens - or alternately his “extra input” to something divine instead of something intrinsic to the environment and the reproducing organisms.
It’s these kinds of shenanigans that have earned Dembski scorn.
Behe is definitely one of the more honest of the bunch, for he has done some plain old science in his day, but even he has his limits. He set the challenge for evolution to produce irreducible complexity, and he set the bar both fairly low and impossibly high at the same time. One of the low bars was that he asserted that there was no possible plausible step-by-step path from other components to a working flagellum. That low bar has been passed since he wrote Darwin’s Black Box. The high bar, though, which ended up drawing the ire of the judge in the Dover case, was that he couldn’t possibly be convinced without what amounts to an insane amount of detail:
Dembski has also pulled the “details!” maneuver on several occasions.
I’ll give you a fun example of something that does not fall under methodological naturalism. Humphries, who is a ‘true’ creationist, operating on Genesis 1:2’s “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”, took this in one of his papers to mean that the earth was a sphere of water. Now Humphries needed a dipole moment in this sphere to reach his conclusion, but a big sphere of water averages zero in this respect. So here he adds k, which is the dipole moment that God chooses to add to the water.
Now there is something hard to test with methodological naturalism… well, unless k still happens from time to time
We can still reverse-engineer them. As far as life goes, we are reverse-engineering it.
One disappointing thing you will find about Intelligent Design is that the questions Intelligent Design poses stop way short of the sort of answer you’re looking for there. They do not propose to identify the designer in their research, or the designer’s methods. If you want to found out how life works, how lame is that?
Sure you can investigate these matters. You just have to investigate them well.
What I often wonder is what experiments Intelligent Design proponents would perform to show that Intelligent Design is true rather than, as they have done, played probability and bad-definition-of-evolution games to merely cast aspersions on evolutionary theory.
So far, Intelligent Design hypotheses aren’t even useful, in part because, since it’s not a mechanistic theory, they stop short of any need to explain details. So primates have tricolor vision, animals share Hox gene layouts and creatures with more similar anatomies also tend to have more similar ALU repeats… at the whim of the designer.
It’s also been a game of Intelligent Design proponents saying that something is irreducibly complex, until it’s proven otherwise, then on to the next example.
Information theory is mathematical and has certainly been applied to evolutionary theory. Shannon entropy and gene duplication go hand in hand, for example, and information theory is good for helping do things like sort out evolutionary trees and splicing sites.
The Shannon entropy and gene duplication one is germane to the discussion in particular, because Intelligent Design proponents and creationists alike have claimed that there is no way to increase the information content in the gene, and they have used the Shannon entropy definition of information (every true/false bit of information halves uncertainty) to do it. Yet if you take a look at what we have for globins, you find duplicates and alterations (beta globins, zeta globins only used during infancy) as well as disabled copies. The duplicates do increase information once they have been altered.
The problem is, based on the research methods of Intelligent Design advocates to date, Intelligent Design won’t and can’t usher in a new wave of progress. It has limited its questions of the designer, the designer’s methods, and of details, and it limits itself to critiques of evolution instead of providing positive evidence of a designer’s efforts on its own, apart from the “it looks complex” argument-by-Paley.
I think if you knew yet more about what Intelligent Design itself was all about, you’d be disappointed.
If you were to start looking for evidence of intelligent design, what questions would you ask? What would you hope to learn? Seriously. I think there are questions you would ask that aren’t being asked.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:14 am
In response to Craig 1513: Why don’t you throw away your preconceived ideas and do some of your own research before you judge what I say. And if you do: pay particular attention to the way heart reacts upon visual stimuli, the intensity of reaction and how that impacts in brain, question why emotion shows in the eyes…in fact question everything! What you’re doing is giving knee-jerk reactions to things that contradict your present understanding…don’t get bogged down in your doctrines…live and learn!
September 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
1498 -Matteo Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Andy, tip number one for contacting the real God is having a desire to contact Him. You quite obviously do not. Nor do you have the smallest scintilla of understanding about Mother Teresa
Hey Matteo - I know this about Mother Teresa….She tried to contact god but god did not answer. Her recently revealed letters make that clear. If god doesn’t speak to her…who does he speak to?
So I’ll need a new tip because evidently desire doesn’t work….nice try though.
” I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone … Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”
— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated
“Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.”
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979
September 26th, 2007 at 7:40 am
#1400 GW, #1503 Beano
For starters try:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Where is the confusion?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:17 am
StephenB says:
“If Jenny knew Karl Popper, she is providing personal testimony about his communication with her. In any court of law, that would be called evidence”
In a court of law a person claiming that someone else said something would not hold up at all unless it was verified by outside evidence. You assumed that she personally knew Popper when she said she was acquainted with him but that can also mean familiar with him. I figured she might just be speaking of the latter.
Jenny verified this when she said she knew this from, “Conversations with some of those in the inner circle. I worked with some of his colleagues. Also, I did some work with Sir John Eccles who was a Darwin Skeptic.”
This is hearsay, is which generally not admissible as testimony in the courts.
“Do you have any evidence that she has beared false witness in the past, or even on this thread? If not, what is your point in asking if she has any evidence?”
Even if a person is considered a reliable witness further evidence to verify the subjective evidence is expected. In this case we found she wasn’t actually a witness by asking these questions. Subjective evidence can be highly unreliable no matter how honest a witness can is. This is why science is base on objective evidence, not subjective.
“Darwins concept of natural selection provides the philosophical foundation for the coldest ethic of them all–‘survival of the fittest.’ It’s an updated version of the of old Sophistic notion of ‘might makes right.’ ”
That is not correct. You are projecting your own ethical views on natural selection where there is none. ‘The fittest’ concern animals more adapted to, survive the obstacles nature tosses them or take advantage of new niches available for exploiting. Competition in the natural world can be much more subtle and doesn’t always appear as cruel as you might think. I would recommend you read further on RM & NS so you can get a better understanding.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am
#1513
It is not true that all vertebrate eyes are pretty nuch the same. Some have color vision some don’t. Primate eyes focus by changing the shape of the lens. The eyes of horses focus by means of a non-spherical eyeball. That is why it seems that the horse is not looking at you when in fact he is. In certain fishes the lens slides back and forth like a bellows camera to achieve focus. They are all vertebrates. Sorry to rain on your parade.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 26th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Oops, my apologies for the mess above, watch for the quotation marks for where StephenB’s are comments.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp!
September 26th, 2007 at 11:22 am
# Craig Says:
September 25th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
I read the GW’s question, but I wasn’t sure what (s)he was asking for. I’ll take a crack though.
Craig said:
Here’s where I get confused. A “transitional form between species” is… another species. All species are transitional.
Philip says:
Incorrect statement. Darwin needed intermediate species as proof of his Theory less it be falsified. To date there is no examples of intermediates in the fossil record that are undisputed empirical evidence of Macroevolution..
Craig says:
If you’re asking for evidence of “macroevolution”, then there’s a bunch at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
They cite all the sources at the bottom, so if you think talk.origins is junk, you can look up the original information yourself.
Talkorgins attempts to intimidate the novice with scientific jargon, however when the smoke clears, their evidence for Macroevolution do not hold up to independent scrutiny of the THEIR scientific method. infact almost ALL of their proposed evidence has already been independently falsified by other evo-scientist. But like the outdated biology textbooks, it will be years before they remove the falsified material from their website!
Consider: Gould and other scientist NEEDED to MODIFY Darwins theory of gradual Macroevolution because the fossil records provided no evidence to support the theory. In the late 1970’s they published many papers citing the non-existence of transitional fossils. Creationist recite those very quotes to articulate their position…Evolutionist then accuse them of taking the quotes out of context,… even though the scientist changed Darwin’s theory to ‘Punctuated Equilibrium” in support of their origional quotes stating no transitional fossils.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Philip Said:
“Why is it that a scientist can look at a rock and determine that an intelligent being chipped it into an arrowhead, but then he looks in his microscope to continually observe and record the magnificent designs of mini-factories,intricate machinery, and language far superior than mans current technology is able to duplicate, only to then insist its just random acts of nature?…………..denial?”
The making of arrow heads and tools has existed into modern history. These skills continue to be taught today though considered obsolete in our culture. With the knowledge of how they are manufactures it is easy to tell if things found that resemble these tools actually were manufactured by man or by natural causes. It’s not just the appearance but other clues left during the process of manufacturing them and clues for the presents of those who made them. The complicated works of microorganisms might appear like complex man made machines, but appearances can be deceiving. It appears that the sun orbits the earth and the world is flat. These are assumptions made in the past that seemed to be obvious truths for everyone. If you make a subjective claim you need to have outside evidence to validate it, like how the cells machines were manufactured and verify the agent that manufactured them. We easily can show both for the arrowhead.
“Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
You supposition is incorrect; the big bang theory offers no implications concerning super natural causes. You are inserting your own conclusions into the theory.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
- Jill Gonzalez, a H.S. scence teacher, was is in fear of losing her job when she testified before the Kansas Board of Education on new science standards.
- Bryan Leonard, a H.S. science teacher from Ohio, was denied his Ph.d because he testified before the Kansas Board of Education.
- Nancy Bryson was fired from Mississippi State for giving a talk to some students on the Cambrian Explosion. She had been the most popular professor on campus and had received the prestigious “Bear Hug” award by the students because of her popularity on campus.
- Roger DeHart, a H.S. science teacher, was fired because he dared present criticism of evolution in his science classroom.
- Pedro Irigonegaray, the pro-evolution attorney made an agreement with John Calvert, the pro-I.D. attorney. The agreement was that they would both ask each other questions. Pedro grilled Calvert for two hours. Pedro, however, broke the agreement and refused to allow Calvert to cross-examine him per their agreement.
I could go on and on, but the point is that pro-evolutionist play hardball, they lie, cheat, anything that will promote their agenda. Yes, they have an agenda and care little for truth.
EVOLUTION IS A LIE as proven by the actions of those in power in the pro-evolution camp.
The National Science Teachers Association has stated that science teachers ARE NOT to present any information that is critical of evolution, whether true or not, to be presented in science classrooms.
Braiwash the minds of American school kids is the agenda, make no mistake about it.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
From Phillip 1512
“Why is it that a scientist can look at a rock and determine that an intelligent being chipped it into an arrowhead, but then he looks in his microscope to continually observe and record the magnificent designs of mini-factories,intricate machinery, and language far superior than mans current technology is able to duplicate, only to then insist its just random acts of nature?…………..denial?”
According to ID, the ultimate explanation is everything is design. There are no boundaries on what is and isn’t designed in ID. So far Demski has only done one test of his supposed algorithm but he has not shared the results with anybody. Sorry, that’s not science.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
So Dutchirish (1511), since we haven’t had someone siting their but looking out the sky for 356 day, 24 hours a day, its not observed? You equivocation is fallace.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Phillip (1514)
“Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
Because Big Bang has gone though the methodical process of the scientific method to be considered a scientific theory. You think Big Bang was accepted right away? Boy you really need to learn the process of how a hypothesis became a established scientific theory.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
#1514 Philip
“Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
In what way(s) are they the same?
September 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
You’ve got to be kidding me. Ben, you’re getting senile. There is NO reason to discuss Creationism in the science classroom. None whatsoever. It is NOT science and it certainly isn’t a ‘competing theory’.
Just when you think you’ve got a righty you can look up to and trust, Ben drinks the rightwingnut kool-aid. How sad.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Marilyn Oakley Says
O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”.
In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
Then Beaglelady said
have some more to say about Marilyn’s post about Horses
She said,
“In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: ‘Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.’ Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?”
Yes, on age 74 there are pictures of hooves from 2 different species of horses. But what it says is this:
“An evolutionary moment is frozen in time. Complete skeletons of the horse Pliohippus verify the transition of a primitive three-toed variety (above) to the one-toed type (top) ten million years ago.”
Of course, Marilyn didn’t write what she posted– apparently it’s been passed around on the internet and accepted at face value. But what a lying piece of scum the creationist author is for distorting this article!
I went to my library to check out this issue and concluded that Beaglelady’s name calling (“what a lying piece of scum the creationist author is for distorting this article”) is total bluster. It is true that the article did add the words Beaglelady noted, but the facts in the article speak otherwise. Why would someone quote something that the evidence in the article showed is untrue? The evidence does not verify the evolution of a primitive three-toed variety to the one-toed type, but rather supports the conclusion that a three-toed variety lived contemporaneously with the one-toed type. This evidence is why the classical horse evolution series printed in textbooks for almost a century is no longer used to prove evolution. The attitude of Beaglelady is one reason why I began to question the evidence for macroevolution. The fact is as is clear on here, the theory’s supporters are not very nice people.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I don’t often trust what someone claims sopmeone else said…and then they provide no proof of the claim, but…
If Dawkins said evolution has not been witnessed, he’s wrong. Fruitflies, for have ‘evolved’ into new species of FFs in the labratory. I beleive the same has heppened with moths and microbes.
Which reminds me. All you creationist nuts, are you getting your flu shots this year?
Since the virus doesn’t really “mutate” into anything else (according to you guys) you won’t be needing it. You can all do with last year’s version of the vaccine, right?
Now that’s standing up for your beliefs: Creationists give up their flu shots for Jesus! Let’s make it happen!
September 26th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Thanks for doing this, guys! I have another name to add to your list of scientists of yore who made God an important part of their lives: Mikhael Lomonosov.
Mikhael is one of my all-time heroes. He was both a poet-writer and scientist and was a hero of the Soviets, although they dutifully played down his “seamy” side, namely his Judeo-Christian beliefs (he was bad to the bone!), as reflected in his poetry. He surely would have been expelled from the Soviet Valhalla had the public known.
Of course, the Soviets were masters of PC so they managed to sweep that embarrassment under the carpet.
Then their regime fell and a funny thing happened. We imported their nasty little pastime of muzzling the faithful and revising our history.
I am not much of a film buff, but I can’t wait for this movie to hit the silver screen! I plan to take the entire family.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
John A. Davison said:
“If I’m, descended from monkeys, why are there STILL monkeys?”
Atomic Chimp responded “You are not descended from monkeys, you have a common ancestor with monkeys”.
My response is Louis Leaky is famous for this claim, but the problem is the common ancestor was a monkey (using the general term) called an Australopithecus.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
“Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
As I understand it, scientists found the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted to be there if the “big bang” theory was indeed correct. And that convinced other cosmologists.
There was no whining about getting into the public school science curriculum immediately, no dodging the scientific proces, no movies, trade books, t-shirts, web banners, or whatever. Simply put, some scientists found enough evidence to convince the majority of other scientists.
(And the Big Bang theory IS very compatible with the faith of many of us. Funny how that didn’t stop most scientists from embracing it, isn’t it?)
September 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
re comment #1495:
Marilyn, that’s quite a laundry list of creationist quote-mines. Did you copy and paste this without reading any original sources, as you did with the National Geographic articles?
And just reading what you posted, most are NOT saying that there are no transitional fossils.
Let’s take the quote of Francisco Ayala, for example:
“It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed phylogenies, for most organisms.”
He is NOT saying there are no transitional fossils! Francisco Ayala is actually a first-rate scientist– he’s an evolutionary biologist AND a Roman Catholic priest. I have read some of his books where he mentions transitional fossils.
You would do well to visit a natural history museum and to read something other than creationist quote-mines.
(btw, I’m curious about your job and that chihuahua you mentioned.)
September 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am
I’m sorry to see an intelligent guy like Ben Stein being being used as a tool like this by Creation/ID propagandists. The good news is that every time they launch a propaganda campaign they drive another nail in their own coffin. People don’t like being duped, and dishonesty doesn’t play well with the public.
September 27th, 2007 at 5:40 am
I can’t even believe that you’re associated with this film Ben. ID is just creationism with a better name. I can almost see the people sitting around the table trying to figure out a more polically correct way of saying creationism. Sure, you can argue that this film is more about freedom of thought in science, but to allow religion into science, to allow religion to govern the way that the scientific process operates is wasting your time and just giving ammunition to the radical right wing conservatives. ID has produced zero, zilch in the form of scientific research. It’s top bulldog, the Insititute for Creation Research (ICR), is a bogus “school” that brainwashes millions of people with their pamphlets. It’s outrageous. Just read one. Their evidence is written in a scientific jargon that is not understood by most of its readers, and usually each argument is summed up by “see Mark X:XX.” As one of the other posts said, pathetic.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:42 am
ID is simply not science
September 27th, 2007 at 7:22 am
If scientists like Dawkins think that God is a fantasy, then how would he explain the origin of the universe itself, i.e, why do things exist in the first place? Evolution presumably did not create the very stuff from which things supposedly evolved, unless we are to believe that the universe just popped into existence ex nihilo due to another one of those improbable probablistic events the evolutionists use to prop their theories.
But if, in a moment of clarity, the evolutionist were to accept that a non-temporal Being originated the universe, then he must ask himself, why this same Being, who brings matter or energy into existence, could not also create men and animals?
Concerning intelligent design, is a scientist allowed to inquire as to whether the Taj Mahal came together through random events? How about a rocking chair? Intelligent design theory simply seeks to understand if there is a rigorous scientific and mathematical theory for establishing whether any complexity is randomly generated or not. Furthermore, the fundamental mathematical basis of this theory is not all that new, having its precedent in information theory which has long been used to eliminate “noise” from data transmissions. We enjoy it every time we talk on the phone or listen to music.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Philip: “Why is it that a scientist can look at a rock and determine that an intelligent being chipped it into an arrowhead, but then he looks in his microscope to continually observe and record the magnificent designs of mini-factories,intricate machinery, and language far superior than mans current technology is able to duplicate, only to then insist its just random acts of nature?”
Simple, because the scientists know the DESIGNER of the arrowhead, hypothesized about the PROCESS that would be used to create the arrowhead based upon what they know about the designer, experimentally determined the characteristic marks and features that would be left by the process, and were able to observe those marks and features in the arrowhead.
In contrast, ID proponents refuse to speculate about the designer, the process the designer used, and have been completely unable (or unwilling) to determine the characteristic features that would indicate design.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Philip: “Why is it that Physicist can propose the Big Bang theory regardless of its possible implications, while evolutionary scientist will not tolerate theories that make the very same implications?”
Because the overwhelming evidence supports the big bang theory. Unfortunately for ID, the overwhelming evidence from several fields of science (including physics) supports evolution. Even worse for ID, most of the hypothoses proposed by people in the ID community are at odds with the data collected in multiple fields of science (including physics).
September 27th, 2007 at 7:49 am
1512 Philip said:
“Why is it that a scientist can look at a rock and determine that an intelligent being chipped it into an arrowhead, but then he looks in his microscope to continually observe and record the magnificent designs of mini-factories,intricate machinery, and language far superior than mans current technology is able to duplicate, only to then insist its just random acts of nature?…………..denial?”
Your assertion is unfortunately misguided, as evolution is not “just random acts of nature.” It is the slow, slow, incremental change of organisms to better survive. The scientist in your example would not experience denial (unless he started with conclusions like ID). In both cases s/he would observe the phenomenon, make an educated guess to explain the phenomenon, collect data, collect data, collect data, analyze the data from every helpful perspective, and draw some meaningful conclusions (from which predictions can be made), such as:
The arrowhead is made from local rock formations and is consistent with hunting methods and designs of local tribes during time period. If I scour this area I may find more of this type.
Through a combination of simple observation, DNA testing of infected organisms, and other laboratory testing, this health-hazardous bacteria is rapidly mutating and will develop resistance to current drugs. To protect against future infections, new antibiotics need to be developed.
Not so hard, is it?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
For a better understanding of my PEZ theory, please visit the excellent timecube website:
http://www.timecube.com/
I see Spravid Dinger is still trying to bully me, probably at the request of Dilliam Wembski.
“When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself. ”
– Peter OToole
SOCKITTOME!
September 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Dutchirish Says:
“Ben, you have massive guts, man. Massive kahunas, is what they would say at my highschool.”
Your high school seems preoccupied with testicles. Why you would comment on Ben’s massive gut is beyond me. Both are irrelevant. FAIL.
“More power to you. Thank you for taking a hit for freedom.”
Ben will be taking a hit all right, unfortunately it is to perpetuate ignorance. FAIL.
“I hope you get my favorite quote from Richard Dawkins on your documentary:
Bill Moyers: “Has evolution been observed?”
Richard Dawkins: “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”
Your high school anatomy book is not just about testicles; in fact, it is rife with examples of our own evolution. Take the human embryo - at four weeks you will notice a well-formed tail. By eight weeks it is usually gone, but some children are born with a short “tail,” which has been observed to grow if not removed. Read up on our other vestigial organs.
Most evolution takes thousands or millions of years. Individually, humans do not live thousands or millions of years. However, we do have an overwhelming amount of evidence that we observe and collect that you are free to browse. I suggest starting here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
“Uh, right, Richard. In other words, it hasn’t been observed.
“Did you witness the crime?” “Yes, your honor, just not while it was happening.” Huh?”
Please read up on the subject of evolution before making unsubstantiated assertions. I think you have some misconception that evolution is like your gameboy pokemon that suddenly flips out like it’s on PCP and gains some new powers. Evolution does not involve this. FAIL.
“The world’s greatest atheist advocate cannot admit the truth that evolution hasn’t been observed. So he’s forced to use Clintonesque rhetoric.”
…and in one fell swoop Dutchirish ends the debate, right? Win? Not the case. Dawkins is not the world’s greatest atheist advocate; the best thing going for atheism is religion’s ridiculous claims. Even if he were the greatest atheist advocate, attacking his statement, non-sequitur, minus context, with dull intellect impresses no-one. Bad FAILTROLL.
“So somehow something that has (1) never been observed and (2) cannot be replicated in a lab despite almost a century of trying, is SCIENTIFIC FACT, and somehow it DISPROVES GOD.”
1. Again, your flawed definition of “observed” stems from taking statements out of context.
2. Brace yourself: the theory of evolution is not fact. It is a theory. Please do not be offended if folks like to think it just might be a better idea than some bronze age shepherds secondhand+ accounts/idea of the spooky and unexplained.
Secondly, how can evolution disprove something that does not exist? And, out of sheer curiosity, which god out of the hundreds available, to the exclusion of all others, are you referring to?
Next, what are you saying cannot be replicated in a lab? Evidence for evolution? If that is all you are looking for, you can probably stop at your home medicine cabinet. Many medicines DEPEND on the predictions evolution makes. That is, the evidence that supports evolution is so strong that scientists can make predictions as to what medicine will be necessary to counteract current and future diseases…as…they…evolve. FAIL.
“Impressive, for something that’s never been observed.”
Like a basic understanding of the subject of which you have brazenly voiced a shallow opinion of.
“Go to it, Ben. More power to you.”
Yes, yes, we all enjoy a good flaming downward spiral from the creationism department every now and then. I’ll get the popcorn I made in post #1284.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
I still can’t believe how so many people can still refer to evolution as “science” when it fails EVERY aspect of the definition of science. Evolution is a faith-based religion just the way any other religion is. Evolution is an idea concocted to rival religion, in order to combat the idea of a “God,” thus, apparently eliminating any accountability to anyone else but self. In addition, evolutionists also fail to address Social Darwinism. It is a fact that the very title of Darwin’s book, “Origin of the Species” is often misrepresented because the true title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The lie of evolution is a racist ideology that gave birth to Hitler and others like him.
Evolution is a false concept that has ABSOLUTELY NO scientific basis. Evolutionists believe they can put a fruit fly in a microwave, nuke it, have it reproduce, and when it’s offspring is born with an additional set of wings, they say, “See, that’s evolution. That proves we came from apes.” I can’t believe anyone with a working brain could believe that garbage. At least Creationists admit we go by faith because NO ONE can prove who created this world, and that ours is a religion based on common sense and reason.
Creationists have tons of arguments that directly CONTRADICT evolution. All evolution has are some so-called “alternative explanations,” but NOTHING at all that contradict Creation. Listen to how foolish evolution is: the lie and say animals evolve (by accident, no less, random chance), but what they don’t say is that animals are made up of cells and atoms. Each cell, organelle in the cells, atoms, everything about that animal must have evolved and that is just impossible when you think about all the species and complexities of the organic world. Evolution is a quickly fading myth.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
What is most reprehensible here is the sneakiness and deception used to pull in reputed scientists who were generous enouh to give of their valuable time. It shows to what extent people will compromise their integrity and much more in the name of their GOD.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Too bad the producers of this ‘film’ had to lie about their intentions in order to interview REAL scientists. Who is “Rampant Films?” Did the clowns at “Premise Media” make it up as a cover? If the “producer” Walt Ruloff at “Premise” actually believes in creationism why cover it up and purposely deceive those in your interview?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
god has never existed and never will. the burden on prooving he does is on you crazy christians. “POOF! here’s Earth and humanity” is not viable argument.
this movie is a waste of time for people of real scientific and forward thinking.
also, those who do not believe in evolution do so because they are currently de-evolving backwards. id be pretty pissed and in denial myself.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Andy, do you have a fundamental desire to know God, or don’t you? It’s not a question about Mother Teresa, it’s a question about you. You assume knowledge and understanding of Mother Teresa that you simply do not have. And you seem to be using her as some kind of excuse to let you off the hook about this important decision. Which is itself a sign that you do not have the desire to know God.
If it were even remotely logically possible that your overall viewpoint or worldview is distorted by the very fact that you do not know God, and if by knowing him, you would see that he is benevolent and full of love for you and able to transform your very being in ways beyond your happiest imaginings, and also enlighten your intellect so you’d understand far more about reality than you currently do (which would include a more charitable and accurate understanding of Mother Teresa’s spiritual situation), would you want to know him? Would you have that desire?
Because absent that, you simply cannot know him. Let Mother Teresa worry about Mother Teresa. It’s not about her. It’s about you. There’s a whole wonderful world outside of the cramped little materialist box you currently occupy. But you’ve got to want to come out.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Rick Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“I still can’t believe how so many people can still refer to evolution as “science” when it fails EVERY aspect of the definition of science.”
A generic definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Is evolution a scientifically sound theory according to this?
Evolution is related to the physical world? Check.
Additional knowledge gained through observation? Check.
Testable hypotheses can be made regarding evolution? Check.
Experimentation can be performed to test evolution? Check.
Data can be collected, organized and conclusions drawn from the data? Check.
Conclusions can be used to make predictions? Check.
Last/most important: hypotheses are falsifiable? Check.
Hi, yes, hello? Hi, yeah, you probably would not recognize science if it humped your leg and left a stain.
“Evolution is a faith-based religion just the way any other religion is. Evolution is an idea concocted to rival religion, in order to combat the idea of a “God,” thus, apparently eliminating any accountability to anyone else but self.
In addition, evolutionists also fail to address Social Darwinism. It is a fact that the very title of Darwin’s book, “Origin of the Species” is often misrepresented because the true title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The lie of evolution is a racist ideology that gave birth to Hitler and others like him.”
I’m sensing these lies and gross ignorance stem from a perceived undermining of personal faith. These are tired, tired, old assertions that have little to no basis. Biology is not out to crucify your god(s), they’ve just stumbled upon a pattern that is founded in evidence and directly contrasts creationism. Already, I’ve seen you conflated science with philosophy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
“Evolution is a false concept that has ABSOLUTELY NO scientific basis.”
I think you’re just saying this now to make yourself feel better.
“Evolutionists believe they can put a fruit fly in a microwave, nuke it, have it reproduce, and when it’s offspring is born with an additional set of wings, they say, “See, that’s evolution. That proves we came from apes.” I can’t believe anyone with a working brain could believe that garbage. At least Creationists admit we go by faith because NO ONE can prove who created this world, and that ours is a religion based on common sense and reason.”
This is dripping with assumptions and no evidence. If you could quote who/which ‘evolutionist’ said this, it would be appreciated.
“Creationists have tons of arguments that directly CONTRADICT evolution. All evolution has are some so-called “alternative explanations,” but NOTHING at all that contradict Creation.”
[Citation Needed] home-slice.
“Listen to how foolish evolution is: the lie and say animals evolve (by accident, no less, random chance), but what they don’t say is that animals are made up of cells and atoms. Each cell, organelle in the cells, atoms, everything about that animal must have evolved and that is just impossible when you think about all the species and complexities of the organic world.”
You could have really just summed this post all up by saying, “Dear Biologists: I am unhappy that you are destroying my false sense of continuity by undermining my religious foundations with your evidence-based claims; if you do not cease and desist I may write you a STRONGLY worded letter! KTHXBAI”
“Evolution is a quickly fading myth.”
The only genuine sentence in this post; a quote from the 1890’s!
Still FAIL!
September 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ben,
I’d rather see life energy be spent on the dialectics among ID, hard science, and soft science — from loggerheads to plastics, than dropping bombs.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Rick Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“I still can’t believe how so many people can still refer to evolution as “science” when it fails EVERY aspect of the definition of science.”
A generic definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Is evolution a scientifically sound theory according to this?
Evolution is related to the physical world? Check.
Additional knowledge gained through observation? Check.
Testable hypotheses can be made regarding evolution? Check.
Experimentation can be performed to test evolution? Check.
Data can be collected, organized and conclusions drawn from the data? Check.
Conclusions can be used to make predictions? Check.
Last/most important: hypotheses are falsifiable? Check.
Hi, yes, hello? Hi, yeah, you need to brush up on what science is.
“Evolution is a faith-based religion just the way any other religion is. Evolution is an idea concocted to rival religion, in order to combat the idea of a “God,” thus, apparently eliminating any accountability to anyone else but self.
In addition, evolutionists also fail to address Social Darwinism. It is a fact that the very title of Darwin’s book, “Origin of the Species” is often misrepresented because the true title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The lie of evolution is a racist ideology that gave birth to Hitler and others like him.”
I’m sensing these lies and gross ignorance stem from a perceived undermining of personal faith. These are tired, tired, old assertions that have little to no basis. Biology is not out to crucify your god(s), they’ve just stumbled upon a pattern that is founded in evidence and directly contrasts creationism. Already, I’ve seen you conflated science with philosophy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
“Evolution is a false concept that has ABSOLUTELY NO scientific basis.”
I think you’re just saying this now to make yourself feel better.
“Evolutionists believe they can put a fruit fly in a microwave, nuke it, have it reproduce, and when it’s offspring is born with an additional set of wings, they say, “See, that’s evolution. That proves we came from apes.” I can’t believe anyone with a working brain could believe that garbage. At least Creationists admit we go by faith because NO ONE can prove who created this world, and that ours is a religion based on common sense and reason.”
This is dripping with assumptions and no evidence. If you could quote who/which ‘evolutionist’ said this, it would be appreciated.
“Creationists have tons of arguments that directly CONTRADICT evolution. All evolution has are some so-called “alternative explanations,” but NOTHING at all that contradict Creation.”
[Citation Needed] home-slice.
“Listen to how foolish evolution is: the lie and say animals evolve (by accident, no less, random chance), but what they don’t say is that animals are made up of cells and atoms. Each cell, organelle in the cells, atoms, everything about that animal must have evolved and that is just impossible when you think about all the species and complexities of the organic world.”
You could have really just summed this post all up by saying, “Dear Biologists: I am unhappy that you are destroying my false sense of continuity by undermining my religious foundations with your evidence-based claims; if you do not cease and desist I may write you a STRONGLY worded letter! KTHXBAI”
“Evolution is a quickly fading myth.”
The only genuine sentence in this post; a quote from the 1890’s!
Still FAIL!
September 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Ben, Ben, Ben -
Talk about a career killer! Playing a rebel in school boy shorts and touting that Intelligent Design is being denied equal time in academia? Geez, I would have thought a bright guy like you would have taken a hard look at the complete Dover trial testimony before signing on to this train-wreck. You seem well positioned to look as foolish as Behe and the Discovery Institute “no-shows” at the trial.
To the filmakers - Why didn’t you discuss how Wegener’s Theory of Continental Drift came to be widely accepted? Here’s a great example of how the arroganct, scientific elite in Geology conspired to keep the lid on a controversial proposal from a mere weatherman… except that when they checked his ideas against testable research (using the scientific method) Wegener was found to be correct, and Plate Tectonics became well established. That’s how real science works.
Poor ID, it can’t win in the lab (nothing to test but empty creationist rhetoric) it can’t win in the courts, so with your help they’ll try to win the hearts and minds of the public with a slick, but scientifically vapid film- Welcome to obscurity, Ben
Steve Marley
September 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Gawd…This is why I don’t want to know the opinions of actors/entertainers…Now I can’t watch anything else you do Ben. You’re not as smart as you think you are…
September 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Brian Barkley Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pm in post 1531
“I could go on and on, but the point is that pro-evolutionist play hardball, they lie, cheat, anything that will promote their agenda. Yes, they have an agenda and care little for truth.
EVOLUTION IS A LIE as proven by the actions of those in power in the pro-evolution camp.
The National Science Teachers Association has stated that science teachers ARE NOT to present any information that is critical of evolution, whether true or not, to be presented in science classrooms.”
Brainwash the minds of American school kids is the agenda, make no mistake about it.”
Of course it’s a lie, and sooner or later it will come out. Evolution cannot hide behind dogma forever. What comes around, goes around. If the education system ACTUALLY cared anything about American school kids, they would stop the teaching of Darwinism evolution, but as Brian said, they have an agenda, and truth is not part of it.
Big Bang Hypothesis (1948) Astronomers were totally buffaloed as to where matter and stars came from. In desperation, *George Gamow and two associates dreamed up the astonishing concept that an explosion of nothing produced hydrogen and helium, which then shot outward, then turned and began circling and pushing itself into our present highly organized stars and galactic systems. This far-fetched theory has repeatedly been opposed by a number of scientists (*G. Burbidge, “Was There Really a Big Bang?” in Nature 233, 1971, pp. 36, 39). By the 1980s, astronomers which continued to oppose the theory began to be relieved of their research time at major observatories (“Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On,” Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984). In spite of clear evidence that the theory is unscientific and unworkable, evolutionists refuse to abandon it.
And please do not point me to the talkorigins site.
And Stephen Gould stated many times, that there are no transitional fossils. Maybe those scientists haven’t done their actual homework. They just automatically believe and go from there. That’s why PE was invented by Gould and Eldredge. It seems more ppl should be updated on their facts.
· Jenny Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“I went to my library to check out this issue and concluded that Beaglelady’s name calling (“what a lying piece of scum the creationist author is for distorting this article”) is total bluster. It is true that the article did add the words Beaglelady noted, but the facts in the article speak otherwise. Why would someone quote something that the evidence in the article showed is untrue? The evidence does not verify the evolution of a primitive three-toed variety to the one-toed type, but rather supports the conclusion that a three-toed variety lived contemporaneously with the one-toed type. This evidence is why the classical horse evolution series printed in textbooks for almost a century is no longer used to prove evolution. The attitude of Beaglelady is one reason why I began to question the evidence for macroevolution. The fact is as is clear on here, the theory’s supporters are not very nice people.”
Thanks Jenny, I appreciate this, I haven’t had time to try and locate that issue.
Rick Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“Evolution is a quickly fading myth.”
Yes, it is. There are more and more people every day coming to this conclusion. Like I said, if this molecules to man evolution were fact, they wouldn’t be here arguing their case, and also trying to convince ppl that Macroevolution is true. The talkorigins site is ALL science fiction. That is what it amounts to.
If something evolved from something else, then what it evolved from, would simply become extinct naturally. They once taught that horse evolved from a rhino, and if that were true, then the rhino would be no more. Recall I said “once taught”.
When other data does come up that is against Darwinism, of course it is natural to have it debunked by an evolutionist. They dare not have the world find out the real truth and have their whole belief fall apart. When evolution is debated in any way, they always find a play on words to try and make the public believe them.
Sometimes, what they have written in scientific mumble jumble is ridiculous. I had read on the talkorigins site, on eye evolution, and couldn’t contain my laughter. It’s very insulting to an intelligent person, the absurd crap they come up with and then teach that crap.
Life and all that is in it, it a bit more complicated (complex) than the evolutionists wants to let on. They must chant every night before they go to bed, to actually make themselves believe that evolution is true.
And as for the fruit fly, mutation only proved they did not get better.
I don’t believe in Big Foot, but I bet if he were found, the evolutionist would jump on that and CLAIM that evolution is TRUE! Look! They’d say, walks like a man, but yet is an ape. All evolution is doing, is making a monkey out of many. Common sense and logic really need to come into play as far as origins of life. If people understood evolution better, they’d be more apt to not believe it.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“Your high school anatomy book is not just about testicles; in fact, it is rife with examples of our own evolution. Take the human embryo - at four weeks you will notice a well-formed tail. By eight weeks it is usually gone, but some children are born with a short “tail,” which has been observed to grow if not removed. Read up on our other vestigial organs”
In my office now I have over 30 college A&P books and not one of them claims any human structure is vestigial. If anyone on here knows of a title, please post. The putative “well formed tail” is the precursor of the spinal cord, not a tail. Any book that claims humans have vestigial organs is either very outdated or irresponsible.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
BTW - Who’s moderating this forum, Bill Dembski?
September 27th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
All people are believers. It is an intelligent action to seek the truth. Unbelief does not, nor will it ever, nullify God. God exists. God does not need to seek us. Those who choose unbelief in God will intellectually (as well as emotionally, phsycologically, and spiritually) understand the “science” of their unbelief at a later, as yet unspecified, place and time. The Word of truth will be known.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
According to a report in The Scotsman newspaper on 20 December 2005, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wanted to rebuild the Red Army, in the mid-1920s, with Planet-of the-Apes-style troops by crossing humans with apes. The report claimed that Stalin ordered Russia’s top animal-breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, to use his skills to produce a super warrior. Stalin is said to have told Ivanov, ‘I want a new invincible human being,
insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat.’
Experiments were done by artificial insemination to impregnate chimpanzees. Dictator Stalin, a passionate atheist, based this upon his belief in evolution. Ivanov shared his master’s belief in evolution. If evolution were true, humans and apes would be closely related. Of course the experiments did not work of trying to breed human and chimpanzee.
God made man in the image of God, not in the image of an ape.
A gruesome trade in ‘missing link’ specimens began with early evolutionary/racist ideas. But this trade really ‘took off’ with the advent of Darwinism. Perhaps 10,000 dead bodies of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the ‘missing link’. US evolutionists were also strongly involved in this flourishing ‘industry’ of gathering specimens of
‘subhumans’.
The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser-evolved ‘savage’ ones.
A German evolutionist who was nicknamed the Angel of Black Death, came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens. A missionary in
New South Wales was horrified to witness the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children. The heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.
Darwinist views about the racial inferiority of Aborigines (backed up by biased distortions of the evidence since shown to be false) drastically influenced their treatment.
A similar horror reappeared in the 1930s, when the evolutionary doctrines of Nazism allowed the consciences of hundreds of doctors, scientists, psychiatrists and other officials to be seared as they set up the machinery to help nature eliminate the unfit.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Dimensio wrote, “Your use of the word “DARWINISM” suggests that you are unfamiliar with the actual subject of the theory of evolution. Referring to the theory of evolution as “Darwinism” is as incorrect as referring to the laws of physics as “Newtonism” or referring to the theory of relativity as “Einsteinism”. Moreover, the current discussion relates to the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design. You have introduced the extraneous concept of materialism.
You are incorrect. We are discussing Darwinistic Evolution and intelligent design. We are not discussing Micro-evolution, Theistic Evolution, Chardinian evolution, or any varation introduced by Stephen J. Gould. Intelligent deisgn has no quarrel with most forms of evolution, so your comments are irrelevant. We are discussing the predominant evolutionary perspective defended by the academic establishment–the substantial change of species through time, chance,random mutation, and natural selection. The offended parties would not be militating against ID if it was defending anything other than Darwinism, because ID challenges Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. The reason we use the term Darwinism is to clarify, not to denigrate. If you want to defend some other form of evolution, you should specify exactly which kind you mean. Chances are,it will be compatible with ID and therefore not be appropriate subject matter for this forum.
Dimensio wrote, “Survival of the fittest” is an oversimplification of the means by which biological systems function as a result of evolution. Not only is it not a fully accurate description of the process, but it is a statement of occurrence, not a justification or statement of how society “should” operate.
And again–”The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, describes an aspect of the universe. It is not, and cannot be, proscriptive or prescriptive. Attempting to derive moral constructs from scientific theories requires an application of philosophy, and when that is done, the derived moral constructs are ultimately a product of the philosophy, not the scientific theory.”
And Again–”It is impossible to directly derive any moral conclusions from the theory of evolution.”
You are incorrect on all levels. While Herbert Spencer first coined the “phrase survival of the fittest,” Charles Darwin included that phrase in his sixth edition of “Origin of The Species.” So he we clearly satisfied with the metaphor as a fair description of his scientific theory.
You are also wrong to assert that Darwinism has no moral implications. If we read only “The Origin Of The Species, we could believe that. If we read “The Descent Of Man, there is no doubt whatsoever the Darwin meant to revise ethics based on his “survival of the fittest” principle—that the unfit individuals and races were unneeded products of evolution and should be left behind for the sake of the species. How much “evidence” do you need? You can look up all the eugenic and racist quotes for yourself.
In this context, the evolutionary process becomes the arbiter of all morality. Whatever promotes the evolutionary progress of humanity is good, whatever impedes it is bad. Since people are going to die in the struggle for existence anyway, why not help it along. That was the philosophy of those unnamed agents I alluded to earlier. So let’s name a few:
From Nietzsche:
“The biblical prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life’s own “Thou shalt not” issued to decadence: “Thou shalt not procreate!” —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no “equal right,” between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!”
From Hitler: (who explicitly paid tribute to Darwin in hiw writings)
“A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called “humaneness” of individuals, in order to make place for the true “humaneness of nature,” which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.” Hello Nazism
From Karl Marx, who also paid tribute to Darwin, we learn that the evolutionary theory of “competitive struggle for existence” should be applied to the class struggle. Hello Communism.
From Margaret Sanger we learn that the black race is inferior and ought to be eliminated. This was the philosophy that founded Planned Parenthood. Hello Eugenics.
Darwinism undermines the idea that man is made in the “image of God” and that man in a uniquely rational being. As Richard Dawkins put it, human beings are “lumbering robots” and “survival machines” for genes.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Your contention, then, that evolution (Darwinism)does not give rise to morality, albeit perverse morality, is thus refuted.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Ben Stein is the PERFECT host for a film subtitled “No Intelligence Allowed”. His buffoonery [thefreedictionary.com/buffoonery]makes Jerry Lewis look like a member of Mensa. One can only imagine how embarassed Ben’s truly brilliant father, world-class economist Herbert Stein, would have been at the career of his idiot son, to date. Too bad the Intelligent Design (i.e., Creationist)cult can’t find anyone of intelligence to shill for them. But not surprising, considering the idiocy of their message.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
#1550 is another imposter. What kind of security does this blog have or does it just not care?
September 27th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
I wrote, “I am not free to raise the issue of intelligent design in a science classroom.
Dimensio responded, “Your objection is not rational. Why should you be “free” to raise a non-science issue in a science classroom? Do you also find it objectionable that you are not able to bring up the issue of Irish poetry in a Calculus classroom?”
Well, that is precisely what all the fuss is about, isn’t it? I submit ID is science; you say it is not. I say we should be permitted to follow where the evidence leads; you say we should be permitted to invesitigate only natural causes. I appeal to 2000 years of open investigation; you appeal to 150 years of closed methodology.
My side says, the modern definition of science is incomplete and needs to be modified, just as it has always been modified when circumstances justified it; your side says, it is just fine and it will not be modified, even though new discoveries about information would seem to call for it. My side says lets work this out; your side says there is nothing to work out–”we have the best way, and that’s it.”
Silencing others in the name of science is a tactic that can work only for so long. Sooner or later, the message is going to get out–this is a freedom of speech issue. I hope the movie, “Expelled” dramatizes this point.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I really should be flattered. Someone is taking me seriously enough to make a fool himself in the process. I suspect Glen Davidson or Alan Fox or some other denizen of “Elsberry’s Alamo,” “Wesley’s Last Stand,” After the Bar Closes, “our forum,” where the indiscreet effete weekly meet to play “can you top this” with one another. It is a beautiful thing to observe. It is almost as much fun as watching P.Z. Myers “randomly ejaculating” to the thundering applause of HIS herd of admiring atheist toadies at Pharyngula.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hey I heard about your film and jumped on over, and I’m impressed by how few people are even attempting to engage their minds in these comments.
Kudos for acknowledging the spirit of inquisitiveness!
September 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Ben, you should thank all the Darwinentalists who’ve replied for proving your point. Don’t ask these questions…it pisses them off.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
NY Times- Science-today-
She said she feared the film would depict “the scientific community as intolerant, as close-minded, and as persecuting those who disagree with them. And this is simply wrong.”
Just visit Panda’s Thumb, the bastion of tolerance, open mindedness and non persecution, as long as you hold the darwin party line comrade.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
So, you’re just asking that ID be given a fair chance in academia, and if disproved, it be disproved not by mere unexamined dogmatism, but by another overwhelming scientific theory? Sounds fair to me.
But, I ask you, is the ID theory set up in such a way that it is POSSIBLE to be disproved scientifically?
Also, Newton didn’t believe in the Trinity (my History of Science teacher said so), and he just kept his mouth shut about it. Not to say that it should have been that way, but what you said about him above does not fully apply to him because he in fact had some version of an academic skeleton in the closet. Had he said anything, he would’ve faced something far worse than the loss of tenure.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
“I still can’t believe how so many people can still refer to evolution as “science” when it fails EVERY aspect of the definition of science.”
Please elaborate. State the “aspects” of the definition of science and explain how the theory of evolution fails to meet these “aspects”.
“Evolution is a faith-based religion just the way any other religion is. Evolution is an idea concocted to rival religion, in order to combat the idea of a “God,” thus, apparently eliminating any accountability to anyone else but self.”
Your claim is false. There is no evidence to suggest that the theory of evolution is an attempt to replace religion. Darwin himself speculated upon the existence and actions of a Creator in the second edition of his groundbreaking book.
“In addition, evolutionists also fail to address Social Darwinism.”
This is because “Social Darwinism” is not actually related to the theory of evolution, and thus has no relevance when discussing the validity of the theory.
“It is a fact that the very title of Darwin’s book, “Origin of the Species” is often misrepresented because the true title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The lie of evolution is a racist ideology that gave birth to Hitler and others like him.”
It would appear that you are unfamiliar with the usage of the word “Races” with respect to the title of Darwin’s book. Darwin was using the term “race” to refer to different varieties of various biological organisms, not merely human organisms. In fact, _On the Origin of Species_ rarely addresses the specifics of human evolution at all. There is no possible means to read racist overtones in the book. If you disagree, please provide a specific excerpt from the book.
“Evolution is a false concept that has ABSOLUTELY NO scientific basis.”
Your claim is simply false. The theory of evolution is a conclusion resulting from observations of extant biodiversity, the fossil record and the known mechanism of descent with modification.
“Evolutionists believe they can put a fruit fly in a microwave, nuke it, have it reproduce, and when it’s offspring is born with an additional set of wings, they say, “See, that’s evolution. That proves we came from apes.”"
It would appear that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution. I am aware of no experiments in the field of biology wherein fruit flies were “nuked” in a microwave, much less any such experiment where the researchers concluded that “we came from apes” as a result. Do you have a citation?
“I can’t believe anyone with a working brain could believe that garbage.”
Perhaps the problem is that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution. Your suggestion that the theory of evolution is a “racist ideology” merely from the title of Darwin’s book suggests that you did not actually read the contents of the book.
“At least Creationists admit we go by faith because NO ONE can prove who created this world, and that ours is a religion based on common sense and reason.”
Are you saying that all Creationists are of the same religion? I was unaware of this. Can you support this claim with evidence, and show that your religion is based upon “common sense and reason”?
“Creationists have tons of arguments that directly CONTRADICT evolution.”
Please provide a sample of these arguments.
“All evolution has are some so-called “alternative explanations,” but NOTHING at all that contradict Creation.”
Please explain what you mean by this. To what do you refer when you say “alternative explanations”?
“Listen to how foolish evolution is: the lie and say animals evolve (by accident, no less, random chance),”
You are again providing evidence that you have not studied the theory of evolution. No one who understands the theory of evolution would claim that evolution occurs by “random chance”.
“but what they don’t say is that animals are made up of cells and atoms.”
Are you saying that not one individual who claims acceptance of the theory of evolution will acknowledge that animals are comprised of cells, which themselves are comprised of atoms?
Forgive my presumption, but I am not certain that you have spoken with any biologists at all.
“Each cell, organelle in the cells, atoms, everything about that animal must have evolved and that is just impossible when you think about all the species and complexities of the organic world.”
Please demonstrate this alleged impossibility.
“Evolution is a quickly fading myth.”
I am aware of no significant movement in the field of biological science that would suggest this.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
You state some blatantly misguided information, and your immense indignation despite the overwhelming Christian majority reveals you clearly have clouded judgment. Nothing is enough in the name of Jesus Christ, is it? Well, Mr Stein, let us rebel against secularism and teach Intelligent Design to our youth. Let us also teach every other theory which yearns to fill the gaps, and offers an alternative Darwinism. Why are you so threatened by evolution? You are really embarrassing yourself, Mr Stein.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Ben…this is pretty disappointing to see that you’re essentially proclaiming that people who believe in evolution are evil and out to destroy other people’s lives.
You’re an intelligent guy, so I’d have figured you’d actually have sought to fully understand the biology behind evolution before going and railing against it. Almost all the intelligent design criticism (in the comments here even) is based on a very poor understanding of evolution and biology.
I will admit that once upon a time, I also had a hard time comprehending that evolution was possible, until the sheer scale of things was explained. The sheer number of living things that have lived and died since life began is what makes evolution make sense. Without an appreciation of the sheer scale it’s easy to dismiss evolution, but if you can fully comprehend the sheer numbers it soon becomes clear.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
BEN! Don’t drink the “blood of Christ”, they’ve poisend it! Did you let people Win All Your Money, and you’re just THAT hard up for a buck? Come on, man, you can move in with me and we’ll watch “Jesus Camp” and laugh at the fascist fundies together while we think of a way to win your money back! (Are you good at “Home Jeopardy on DVD”???) We can rebuild you.. make you better, faster, stronger than you were before (now where can we find six million dollars… hmm…)!
Please write, Ben! We need to discuss this! One of us needs to be saved (psst.. hint.. that’s you..)!
September 27th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Rick,
Unfortunately, a Christian, Republican judge appointed by Bush recently ruled that evolution is science and that creationism and intelligent design are NOT science. How do you explain that?
Evolution is backed by volumes of facts, not faith. It is a shame you and others like you continue to spread such ignorant nonsense.
As for creationism, please explain how plants of every kind can exist without the sun, since plants of every kind were created on the third day and the sun was not created until the fourth. Please provide evidence of people living to be over 900 years old. Please provide evidence of talking snakes. Please provide evidence that the sons of God came down from heaven and had sex with the women of earth, producing “the heroes of old” (Genesis 6). Until you can provide such evidence, stop promoting creationism.
For evidence of evolution, www.talkorigins.org is a good start.
May you become enlightened.
Ed
September 27th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
# Hammurabi Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Your assertion is unfortunately misguided, as evolution is not “just random acts of nature.” It is the slow,slow, incremental change of organisms to better survive…
Through a combination of simple observation, DNA testing of infected organisms, and other laboratory testing, this health-hazardous bacteria is rapidly mutating and will develop resistance to current drugs. To protect against future infections, new antibiotics need to be developed.
Not so hard, is it?
Philips response…”Not so hard? Then please provide me just ONE scientifically undisputed empirical evidence example of a bacteria “slowly,slowly,incrementally changing” into a new distinctly different species!
I politely await your example.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Kareem said:
“If scientists like Dawkins think that God is a fantasy, then how would he explain the origin of the universe itself, i.e, why do things exist in the first place?”
I don’t quite understand why you would expect an evolutionary biologist to be able to answer a question about cosmology.
We don’t know (yet!) where the universe came from or, as Stephen Hawking, why there is something rather than nothing. String theory has some tentative ideas in that direction, but string theory itself has a ways to go before we can rely on it.
“Evolution presumably did not create the very stuff from which things supposedly evolved, unless we are to believe that the universe just popped into existence ex nihilo due to another one of those improbable probablistic events the evolutionists use to prop their theories.”
It might have been that way actually. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles are popping into and out of existence all the time (and this can be proven). The universe might be the same thing on a bigger scale. We’re still working on it.
“But if, in a moment of clarity, the evolutionist were to accept that a non-temporal Being originated the universe, then he must ask himself, why this same Being, who brings matter or energy into existence, could not also create men and animals?”
No one is saying that this Being *couldn’t* have created men and animals, just that there is no evidence for it, no way to test it, and if it’s true, then I would like to ask the Being why It did such a shoddy job of it.
“Concerning intelligent design, is a scientist allowed to inquire as to whether the Taj Mahal came together through random events? How about a rocking chair?”
The difference if, we know people can construct buildings and chairs because we’ve seen it done. So it’s reasonable to assume that the Taj Mahal and a rocking chair were also built by people, even if we didn’t see it happen. But we’ve never seen your Being construct anything, so there’s no reason to suppose It was responsible for building the animals. However, since we *have* seen species evolve naturally, it’s reasonable to speculate, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that all of them arose that way.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Brian Barkley said:
“EVOLUTION IS A LIE as proven by the actions of those in power in the pro-evolution camp.”
I don’t see how the actions of a few people suddenly overthrow over a century of research.
“The National Science Teachers Association has stated that science teachers ARE NOT to present any information that is critical of evolution, whether true or not, to be presented in science classrooms.”
Do you have a link for this? The only thing I could find was this: http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx
It just says science teachers shouldn’t advocate a religious basis for nature.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Craig,
Evolution is closer to religion than science. It relies on “Science” to prop it up and undergird it but evolution is still only a series of beliefs in search of support.
Your answer on the mechanism question is the same old, time+chance=life. How often would a major evolutionary “event” have had to have take place in order to go from a gaseous cloud to planetary formation to the right combination of events that could support life (atmosphere, temperature, light, chemical compounds[where ever they may have come from])to the jump to the first biological formations to the ability to formulate that E=mc2? How many more times will evolution add another 10 million or billions of years to age in order for science to “prove” the evolution theory?
What is the calculation for the probability that two eyes would be necessary? Why not just one? Why any at all? Why in color? (The better hunters in the animal kingdom see in monochrome so that would be a much more usefull evolutionary characteristic to have for a species that is competing for survival).
Finally, why is it that evolution is the only “science” that finds improvement through mutation, and higher order from lower form? It has to be Faith; hoping that science can sure up one’s belief in the doctrine of Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Philip said:
“Incorrect statement. Darwin needed intermediate species as proof of his Theory less it be falsified.”
Um, yes. The point is, GW asked for a transitional form between species, which is a meaningless question because ALL species ARE transitional forms between species.
“To date there is no examples of intermediates in the fossil record that are undisputed empirical evidence of Macroevolution.”
Of course not, because, as has been pointed out many, many times, science doesn’t deal with undisputed evidence. However, we have many examples of “intermediate” fossils that stronger suggest macroevolution.
“Talkorgins attempts to intimidate the novice with scientific jargon”
So, did you read the evidence or not?
“their evidence for Macroevolution do not hold up to independent scrutiny of the THEIR scientific method.”
Really? Why do you say that?
“infact almost ALL of their proposed evidence has already been independently falsified by other evo-scientist.”
Can you cite specific examples?
“Consider: Gould and other scientist NEEDED to MODIFY Darwins theory of gradual Macroevolution because the fossil records provided no evidence to support the theory.”
No, the fossil records supported it sometimes, but other times it seems that changes happened much more rapidly that one would expect. That’s why Gould came up with punctuated equilibria. Change in the face of evidence is a *strength* of science, not a weakness. And for the record, not all biologists are convinced Gould was right, so the jury is still out.
“In the late 1970’s they published many papers citing the non-existence of transitional fossils.”
Can you provide an example of one of these papers claiming there are no transitional fossils?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
John A. Davison said:
“It is not true that all vertebrate eyes are pretty nuch the same.”
They all have the same “design” problems as human eyes do, which was the point.
“Sorry to rain on your parade.”
You didn’t.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Tina said:
“And if you do: pay particular attention to the way heart reacts upon visual stimuli, the intensity of reaction and how that impacts in brain, question why emotion shows in the eyes…in fact question everything!”
That’s all good, but what does any of it have to do with the fact that our eyes are wired backwards?
“What you’re doing is giving knee-jerk reactions to things that contradict your present understanding…don’t get bogged down in your doctrines…live and learn!”
I could say the same to you.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Marilyn said
“But a lot is taken at face value in re: Darwinism evolution, I’d say, the whole common ancestor thing is a big hoax, and how gullible that ppl actually believe it without a question. Had you actually studied these transitional fossils firsthand, and did you actually - after long hours, months, years, etc. of studying these transitional fossils come to an accurate conclusion that man and ape are related in any way? Or have you just merely read and accepted words from an evolutionist who interprets the data to fit his imagination?”
Marilyn, I assume since you think that “the common ancestor thing is a big hoax”, then you must have done what you asked in your post: studied the transitional fossils first hand for long hours, months, years and not merely read and accepted the words from an ID believer who interprets the data to fit his imagination?
I envy you. What was it like working with those fantastic fossils?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Time to do some homework. Before you start with ‘Einstein or a Newton or a Galileo’. Galileo for one was almost put in front of the inquisition – he backed down and signed a paper saying that his telescope was a mistake. This based on the almighty church - in the name of a sky god, that never existed except in the minds of uneducated fools.
You apparently are uneducated in your conception of the idea of a ‘god’. Take the time and warp back to the Egyptian and Samarian myth stories – maybe you’ll see the plagiarism that has been accomplished by that insanely silly book that everyone touts, and, learn some astrology – you might find all twelve apostles there, not including the self appointed Paul.
While you are at it try and figure out why your sky god didn’t tell humanity about diseases and how to cure them – would this sky god actually have people believe in demons possessing people when they were sick from the bodies that were created – by him/she/it?
Science works on the basis of “proof”, that is what it is all about, and yes, they make mistakes but are more than willing to acknowledge those mistakes and make corrections, it is NOT cut and dry, like your sky god who makes NO corrections. I am very glad for science - they can truly bring people back to life (but receive absolutely NO credit for it). They can find cures for illnesses; they can produce better food stuffs then ever imagined and much - much more.
Apparently you need money and using the tactics of fundamentalism you will surely get all you can handle, they love to pay - so they can get into their heaven to worship and praise their sky god for eternity!
September 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Dutchirish Said:
“Ben, you have massive guts, man. Massive kahunas, is what they would say at my highschool.”
Before singing the praises of Ben Stein’s private parts, you should wait and see if he is willing to face evolutionary biologists in person as the release date for the film draws near. It would make for some interesting confrontations on the talk-show circuit, wouldn’t it?
And what if pro-ID school boards are inspired by this film to attempt to put creationism in the science curriculum? They will probably be sued– but will Ben Stein be there for them?
Actually, I wonder if he even reads this blog. Has he made any comments after his initial post?
September 28th, 2007 at 12:14 am
To Rick… Evolution is a religion? How— “A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”
“Evolution is a false concept that has ABSOLUTELY NO scientific basis.”
-How much proof do you need? The entire thought of evolution is science. Science, if I remember correctly science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. Is this not done in EVERY single action related to the study of evolution?
“Evolutionists believe they can put a fruit fly in a microwave, nuke it, have it reproduce, and when it’s offspring is born with an additional set of wings, they say, “See, that’s evolution.”
- Clearly, we are speaking with someone who never attended a school in his life and lived a hole in the back woods of West Virginia his whole life. Microwaves are for food, not flies and other test subject. (Except for hamsters, they make wonderful popping noises). Though, it is proven through SCIENTIFIC study and research that microwaves gamma ray and other forms of radiation cause abnormal mutations within a cell. I am pretty sure that is what is call cancer, not evolution.
Tard -_-
September 28th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Bravo, Rick, and everyone else who have realized why neo evolution, which relies on random mutation to work, is absolutely impossible. If you don’t agree, just consider this. Random mutations cannot produce improvements in physiology that can be passed to offspring! Think about it. A partially formed eye DOES NOT WORK! A creature with non-functional eyes can’t mate. It can’t find food. It gets eaten!
Naturalistic, random chance processes are not only blind, they are DEAD. End of story. Why do evolutionists insist that EVOLUTION is a proven fact. It’s obvious. Their job depends on it.
I have studied the debate and the evidence, on both sides, for three years. Fasinating! I always assumed that evolution explains life.I now know, beyond any doubt, IT DOES NOT.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:07 am
THE SMOKING GUN PROOF THAT KILLED EVOLUTION….
Philip said:
“Darwin needed intermediate species as proof of his Theory less it be falsified.140 years later thereare still no transitional fossils!”
# Craig Says:
September 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Um, yes. The point is, GW asked for a transitional form between species, which is a meaningless question because ALL species ARE transitional forms between species.
Philip provides…THE SMOKING GUN!!!!!!!!!!
This copy of the famous letter which idicates Gould and the American museums observations that there were no transitional fossils to support the theory of evolution. I invite you to read it several times over to understand the specifics and because all the evolutionist arguments of millions of examples of transitional fossil evidence comes to a complete halt..Lest they deny the obvious and attempt to deflect!
Colin Patterson “I will lay it on the line,there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”.
See copy of letter…
http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/britevo.pdf
September 28th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Ben, I am truly disappointed. No, I am outraged.
You have just insulted the vast majority of hard working scientists (especially biologists and geologists), teachers, graduate students, and science majors throughout the planet, from China to Australia to Moscow to Toronto and back, who understand fact of evolution. You are making a movie pretending there is scientific controversy when there isn’t.
For you to say academia “wants to keep science in a little box” is a slap in the face. You slander and falsely accuse the very people who do science as a career, their very jobs, who know the most on the subject. If creationism had one iota of evidence and value, we would hear it. It does not, and evolution is expanding and making the news on a daily basis. Evolution, based on all current data, is a fact. It is a repeatedly verified hypothesis.
Evolutionary scientists are able to produce data to support their claims, whether it be from fossils, radiometric dating, or DNA. Creationists do not, they have zero evidence, zero data. Academia expels creationists because it is their duty to expel idiots, not because this is a global conspiracy along the world’s scientists to suppress evidence of a creator and prop up the atheistic idea of evolution.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Colin Patterson letter was referring to Gould’s continued statements such as…
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.…
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
Professor Stephen Jay Gould,
The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp.179-181.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:40 am
You cannot support creationism by criticizing evolution. You need positive proof of a creator, evidence, and data. Where is it? where is the scientific theory of creationism?
See, there is positive proof of evolution. Fossil, radiometric dating, fossils in strata of rock, antibiotic resistance, etc.
From the days of Galileo to the modern banning stem cell research, to this movie, there is no better demostration of how religion is anti-science, anti-intellectual ignorance.
Creationism had the majority of human history to prove it’s case. It failed. A five year old looking at fossils in strata of rock can figure out why.
Evolution rules, Science proves, Religion fools.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Colins statements accurately reflect his sentiments writen in his letter…Talkorigin can dispute context all they want, but the letter is absolute proof!!!
“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?’
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school’.”
Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5
September 28th, 2007 at 5:33 am
It the hit dog that howls. Frim watching the trailers of the film I didn’t see any attacks on the theory of evolution. I don’t know what inside information those that are criticisint this film have. What I saw was an exposé of supression of any theories that may run counter to evolution. Yes it is true that it was the Catholic Church that supressed many progressive ideas in the Medieval era but that is no argument in favor of supressing any ideas that may or may not be true. I have studied evolution in University and there are many questions that cannot be answered. Most outstanding to me is if species are evolving and are at a point where millions of species exist, there should be several more millions of fossils of other transitional species. Does that prove the existence of Gog? No, but it certainly is evidence that there are other possible explanations of the origen of the species than evolution.
I don’t think there is a problem of people trying to force their Christian religious views on others through creationism of ID (although I concede that before the Scopes trial that might have been the case.) It’s just that many are forcing the belief of evolution which takes as much faith to believe in as creationism on others.
Yes it looks like Ben may have made a few mistakes about Einstein’s beliefs (and I hope he edits out some of the more emotional arguements and concentrated more on the facts in the final cut). But the bottom line is that certain ideas are being supressed in the name of science. This runs totally against the principles of the scientific method which can only advance knowledge if no idea which hasn’t proven to be absolutely false can be discarded.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:00 am
There never were any gradual, species transformations. They never existed. My God, the so called horse series, while it culminated irreveresibly in the one toed modern Equus, did so through an orthogenetic series of precursors each so different from the others that they had to be ascribed to a separate genus. This is exactly what is to be expected through a system which releases preformed information by the restructuring of that information’s source which is the chromosome. When that structure is reorganized many separate features are bound to be independently affected which is exactly what the fossil record discloses. Such a mechanism is the antithesis of the Darwinian model. The gaps in the fossil record are very real.
“We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.” “The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
Otto Schindewolf, paraphrased.
Schindewolf is right on.
Actually the missing links DID exist. They aren’t even missing. The only problem is identifying them as they are all long dead. They no longer exist.
I repeat my conviction that creative evolution is finished and was planned from the beginning, millions of years ago. The terminal goals have all been reached. From now on it is all down hill. Trust me but of course you won’t. Your various “prescribed,” congenital mentalities will not permit it!
“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!”
Gregor Mendel
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
You sure got that right Al!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 28th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Nella says, there is positive proof of evolution. Presumably Nella means molecules-to-man evolution. If that indeed is the case, Nella, would you please show me the proof.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Jbagail Says:
September 26th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
“My response is Louis Leaky is famous for this claim, but the problem is the common ancestor was a monkey (using the general term) called an Australopithecus.”
Your clam is incorrect, Australopithecus is not a monkey. Australopithecus translates australis (Latin) - “of the south” and pithekos (Greek) - “ape”, so even its name speaks more of an ape than a monkey. I suggest you read more on Australopithecus so you might better understand why its not a monkey.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 28th, 2007 at 7:43 am
“Colin Patterson “I will lay it on the line,there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”.”
I would advise against using mined quotes as an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution. You cannot disprove a scientific theory by quoting any single individual out of context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
September 28th, 2007 at 7:46 am
” A partially formed eye DOES NOT WORK! A creature with non-functional eyes can’t mate. It can’t find food. It gets eaten!”
It would appear that you have not adequately researched the subject on which you speak. The “half an eye” argument has been addressed many times: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
September 28th, 2007 at 7:51 am
“Ben, you should thank all the Darwinentalists who’ve replied for proving your point. Don’t ask these questions…it pisses them off.”
A number of individuals have made this claim, yet not one has substantiated the assertion by quoting any specific posting, despite requests. Why is this?
September 28th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Edwin said,
“Please provide evidence of talking snakes” come on Ed, you can’t believe a demon can make a snake talk and yet you firmly believe a monkey can do it all by itself with no help at all!
September 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Edwin said,
“As for creationism, please explain how plants of every kind can exist without the sun, since plants of every kind were created on the third day and the sun was not created until the fourth.”
I’m sure you read Ed that there was light on the “first day”, I mean how many days did God create? Only one and the rest are repeats.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Hi Ben,
I really look forward to the movie! Wow, after spending a few minutes reading the comments here, it looks like the followers of The Religion of Evolution (TM) are really, really pissed! How dare you challenge their theory! You know what happens when you shine a light into a dark place… cockroaches scatter.
Can’t wait to see the movie.
David
September 28th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Nella,
Good question.
For a creationist take on the fossil record, see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter8.asp
For a creationist take on radiometric dating, see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
And for a creationist take on antibiotic resistance, see
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria
Thanks
Micky
September 28th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Truly amazing the comments on Ben. Gee, shame on you Ben Stein for exposing Darwinism Big Science. Perhaps they would all like you to suppress your freedom of inquiry. Remember Darwinian’s #1 rule, “Never question, just accept. Darwinism is fact, because we say so.”
In other words, “shut your mouth, close your mind, and continue to be brainwashed.”
September 28th, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Well, that is precisely what all the fuss is about, isn’t it? I submit ID is science; you say it is not.”
If you disagree, then you should explain how Intelligent Design meets the requirements of the scientific method.
“I say we should be permitted to follow where the evidence leads; you say we should be permitted to invesitigate only natural causes.”
You are misrepresenting my statement. I have said only that science investigates natural causes exclusively. It is not impermissible to investigate non-natural causes, but such an investigation is inherently non-scientific, even if this investigation yeilds correct results.
“I appeal to 2000 years of open investigation; you appeal to 150 years of closed methodology.”
If you are suggesting that science has restricted itself to investigating natural causes exclusively only for the last 150 years, then you are mistaken.
“My side says, the modern definition of science is incomplete and needs to be modified, just as it has always been modified when circumstances justified it; your side says, it is just fine and it will not be modified, even though new discoveries about information would seem to call for it.”
If an existing methodology is demonstratably inadequate for investigating a cause — and you have not demonstrated that this is the case — then the solution is to use a different methodology. The solution is not to redefine an existing methodology so that it encompasses your research approach when it did not before. The former is a rational approach; when one tool is inadequate for a function, a different tool is used instead. The latter suggests that you are interested in calling your approach “scientific” as a means of riding upon the legitimacy of the name “science” to give your claims false credibility.
“My side says lets work this out; your side says there is nothing to work out–”we have the best way, and that’s it.””
There is no reason to alter a process that has proven effective. If the process is inadequate for a given field of study, then a different process should be employed.
“Silencing others in the name of science is a tactic that can work only for so long.”
Who, exactly, is being “silenced” and in what specific way are they being “silenced”?
“Sooner or later, the message is going to get out–this is a freedom of speech issue. I hope the movie, “Expelled” dramatizes this point.”"
Please demonstrate that freedom of speech is being supressed. Note that not recognizing a non-scientific claim as scientific is not supression of speech.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
If science is the observation and documentation of the natural world by MAN and Man names and documents what he observes,then it follows that Man knows nothing of existence and matter………….all he does is merely give it a name by his own choosing and tell of its properties and functions according to his OWN understanding and then manipulates for his gain or loss what he has observed. The REALITY of what “things are” will forever be a mystery in this life despite how much scientists observe,name and catalogue. What blind fools!!!!
Further and on a moral ground one could submit that Darwin has the potential to entirely disassembled any foundation for morality. If ,as Darwin and his followers propose, we are just a product of an “accidental” evolutionary process with no specific purpose in existence then it follows that anything in terms of murder,slavery,torture,and/or any other form of debauchery or violence is inconsequencial and is niether “right nor wrong”.As an example the GREAT SCIENTIST HAWKINS has publicly stated that it should be allowed for parents to KILL thier child within the first two years of his/her life if the child is deemed “abnormal”………after all he/she is just an evolutionary creature with no specific purpose in life.
If as well Darwin is correct on the survival of the species and nature wanting only the fittest to reproduce then what does that say about Homosexuals? They must be “abnormal” then as nature has instilled in them the desire for thier procreative acts to specifically eliminate their genes from the species pool…………….I wonder how many years HAWKINS would give them!!!!
September 28th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Let’s focus on the fact that the issue in this documentary is the suppression of ideas in the scientific community and the blacklisting of anyone who dares to counter the Theory of Evolution. That’s the issue here. Is that or is that not occurring? Whether one does or does not believe in Intelligent Design is not the issue here. The question to be answered is whether or not scientists who publicly express doubts about Evolution are routinely hounded out of their jobs.
September 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
It is like talking to a wall here.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:22 am
TO “PATHETIC” ET AL:
HOW DID THE FIRST PROTEIN INVENT ITSELF?
September 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
To say that we KNOW there is no God, and thus no intelligent design, isn’t scientific at all. Have we explored all the universe and by that have found there there is no God? That is not science, that is a wish to believe what you want, instead of letting what is available to study be studied. If you havent seen all there is “out there” how can you say with certainty, that there isn’t something there? Even Stephen Hawking is still looking, because he knows he hasn’t found everything there is to find. Evolutionary thinking requires great faith since there has been no evidence produced whatsoever that it is anything more than theory. A theory is but a thought, not evidence. So, therefore evolution in itself, taken in faith, is but a religion in that it cannot be proved, therefore it is by faith.
Do not believe in God, if that is what you choose, but don’t prevent those who wish to investigate with open minds whether there is an intelligent designer or not. To intimidate those who don’t believe what you believe is no different than fascism. Let scientists, by the scientific method investigate what they find. Thoughts are not evidence of truth, and a theory, is nothing but a thought without real evidence.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:25 am
# DImensio Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 7:43 am
“Colin Patterson “I will lay it on the line,there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument”.”
I would advise against using mined quotes as an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution. You cannot disprove a scientific theory by quoting any single individual out of context:
*********************************************************
Dimensio,
I provide a copy of the actual letter which Talkorgin denies the content exist. Please read the letter to see that Talkorgin is being intellectually dishonest! Please refute the stated evidence, not the words of people who suppress the evidence.
See Letter…
http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/britevo.pdf
September 28th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Interesting how many people jumped on the Bash Ben bandwagon. I can prove mathematically that evolution didn’t occur. Further, I assert that those of you who are so staunch in your beliefs about Darwin, have never even read Darwin’s diaries, for if you had, you would know that he, himself, stated that this hypothesis was unprovable. Further, Mr. High School Fresman, you, son, have been brainwashed. The first rule of science is ACCEPT NOTHING. The second rule is QUESTION EVERYTHING. It’s called skepticism.
For those of you who are saying that this is religion disguised as science, then you have all failed basic freshman sciene. Evolution is NOT a theory. It does not pass the most basic of tests, which is, controlled experimentation. That absolutely has not occurred. There are no controlled experiments concerning evolution. Why? Takes too much time. So, no evidence, no theory. There is more evidence toward the existence of God than there is for the evidence of evolution. (why are there still monkeys or pigs?)
So many marching to the party line. Brainwashing abounds. There are no real skeptics left on this planet. Beam me up Scotty!!
September 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“Further and on a moral ground one could submit that Darwin has the potential to entirely disassembled any foundation for morality. If ,as Darwin and his followers propose, we are just a product of an “accidental” evolutionary process with no specific purpose in existence then it follows that anything in terms of murder,slavery,torture,and/or any other form of debauchery or violence is inconsequencial and is niether “right nor wrong”.”
Not all who accept the theory of evolution as valid propose that humans exist as a result of an “accident”. You are arguing against a strawman.
“As an example the GREAT SCIENTIST HAWKINS has publicly stated that it should be allowed for parents to KILL thier child within the first two years of his/her life if the child is deemed “abnormal””
Please provide a citation to support your assertion.
“If as well Darwin is correct on the survival of the species and nature wanting only the fittest to reproduce then what does that say about Homosexuals? They must be “abnormal” then as nature has instilled in them the desire for thier procreative acts to specifically eliminate their genes from the species pool”
Your statement suggests that you are unfamiliar with the intricacies of genetics, especially as they apply to social animals.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Common descent and fossils do not prove evolution is responsible for all of the complexity and variety of life, and does not exclude intelligent design. Evolutionists are too dense to even understand these basic, logical ideas, so what more can be said? Might as well try to convince a rock.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am
As I listen here to the Angry A-thiest(religion absent a diety)objections to Intelligent design, Im stunned by the inabillity( or refusal) to turn those same questions back on the Darwinian HYPOTHESIS.
First, For somthing to go from the place of hypothesis to therory, it must be first be Observable, testable and repetable. Niether ID nor evolution can be observed, they happened to long ago, It supposedly takes millions( billions?) of years for evolutionairy processes to take place. Hence Evo. Hypoth. must state thier case for “observations” with such ideas as ” monkey’s have opposable thumbs, man has the same, hence man came from monkey’s!!! (yes there will be oversimplifications here for sake of space, but you get my point)which is about as wise as saying birds have wings, airplanes have wings, hence airplanes evolved from birds.
Evo cannot be tested for the same time contraints, and niether can it be repeated in a lab setting( and getting isotopes to stick together for a few minutes in a CLOSED environment dosent pass the strait face test, let them preform the same experiment without material to begin with and no scientist to set it up and lets see what the result is!!!) Evolutionairy hypothesis needs to completly disregard 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics( laws of entropy and decay) to even make it passable as a brief thought. The FACT is that Nothing and I mean nothing goes from disorder into order on its own. Again , by way of analogy, if you spill a bucket of wood blocks on the ground how many millions of year would it take those blocks to form themselves into a tower??? Well after millions of years not only would you not have a tower but the wood blocks would have decayed into nothing, not to mention the inability to reproduce themselves.
So let those who object to irreducable complexity explain, by way of testable and repeatable Facts, how purposless and blind processes can assemble the universe, somehow avoiding decay and the law of conservation. And if you can than I guess a pile of car parts, given enough time, will assemble themselves into a working BMW.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“What I saw was an exposé of supression of any theories that may run counter to evolution. ”
Please state a scientific theory that runs counter to the theory of evolution.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
I am very pleased that you took on this project Ben. Intelligent design is obvious in the workings of our universe. Thank-you for speaking up on such an important issue. Did evolutionists check their brains in at the door?
September 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
WWhhooeeee looks like you stirred yourself a hornets nest Ben.I can’t wait to see the movie.I just love the way us humans think we have all the answers to life and creation in a little box. Hey!! I don’t believe in man
made global warning either:) I smell an Oscar.
September 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Thank you for exposing the true dogmatics, who are afraid of questions or data that conflicts with their “holy” theory of evolution- if they were true scientists they would not be so quick to bar discussion and close minds.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Scientific Method: An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.
What experiments have evolutionary scientists conducted that prove abiogenesis? Even the simplest life forms are quite complex. If one were to compare the genetic code to the machine code used in computers, you would realize how complicated that “program” is and that it could not have come about without a programmer, a designer. Given billions upon billions of years, does anyone in their right mind think that the continuous jumbling of a massive amount of 0’s and 1’s could result in a complex and functional computer program? Abiogenesis is a big leap of faith.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Ben,
Well, here we have on this blog, 1,000 examples of why this film is so important. Too bad none of them will be willing to watch it thus remaining in their “science” induced intellectual stupor. I look forward to watching. Be encouraged.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Bravo Ben for taking a stand on the critical issue of academic freedom! Your intellectual courage is commendable, and remains as rare in academia as a conservative in Hollywood.
The following is a letter I wrote to my son’s grade school teacher:
*******************
I writing to share my belief that what my son is taught in your classroom directly impacts his sense of self-esteem and sense or purpose. It is with that perspective in mind that I raise the following issue, not to be polemical, but rather to raise your awareness as my son’s instructor regarding recent significant developments in science. My son recently reported that he was taught at the Marguerite-Hahn school that he descended from apes. While evolution theory remains the dominant paradigm in today’s public school curriculums, I wish to share with you recent developments in science showing that this dominance is waning. In addition, as a Phi Beta Kappa Vassar College graduate who received an A in my college biology course, I am writing to intelligently protest the squandering of the district’s finite financial resources teaching evolution theory to grade school children. While the special theory of evolution (i.e., variation within a species) is scientifically testable and should be taught at the high school level as part of a standard biology curriculum, the unwarranted extrapolation of the special theory to the general theory should not be taught at any level. The general theory unduly extrapolates that minor variations within a species accumulate over time to account for the vast diversity of life and creation of new species. This unsupported extrapolation from the special to the general theory is at the core of the controversy, and many highly respected scientists reasonable reject it as untenable, untestable, and unscientific.
It is academically, scientifically and morally reprehensible to teach the general theory as fact because it remains untested, unproven, and therefore unfounded. I welcome you or any instructor to cite a single scientific experiment that validates the central claim of the general theory, i.e., all life originated from a single cell by means of random mutation combined with an unintelligent selection process. A search of the scientific literature reveals that no such study exists, and for good reason: The general theory deals with historically discreet, isolated events that are not directly observable, repeatedly, or quantifiable. Given these limitations, the scientific method is powerless to falsify claims advanced by the general theory as this would require:
· Making a specific prediction based on the theory that may be scientifically tested and found to be true or false
· A structured scientific experiment with carefully defined dependent and independent variables
· Directly observable variables and outcomes
· Quantifiable variables and outcomes
· Repeatable variables and outcomes
In contrast to the general theory of evolution, the theory of gravity easily satisfies the above criteria because it allows for specific predictions that may be directly tested, observed, quantified, and repeated to confirm the results. For example, if I predict when I let go of an apple in my hand that it will fall to the ground, a scientific experiment testing the validity of this hypothesis may be structured and carried out. The independent variable is releasing the apple from my grasp, and the dependent variable is how gravity causes the apple to fall. Moreover, very specific and quantifiable predictions about the apple’s rate of acceleration towards the ground may be tested in the course of such an experiment. Different types of objects may also be used to compare rates of acceleration and arrive at a reasonable scientific conclusion about the theory of gravity, and what role friction from the atmosphere plays on different types of objects (e.g., a feather versus a bowling ball). In contrast, the general theory of evolution is bereft of any testable predictions, and is consequently beyond the reach of scientific testing or validation. Absent the ability to test predictions derived from the theory, the general theory of evolution is strictly speaking unscientific. Without the imprimatur of science, it is not a theory at all and raises the question why it is ever included in any science curriculum.
Sadly the popularity of the general theory of evolution has fueled some of the most nefarious ideologies and atrocities of the 20th century, i.e., Marxist-Leninism, Communism, Social Darwinism, National Socialism, Nazism, and Eugenics. Evolution theory is a bizarre paradox that was intentionally and intelligently created yet proposes all life is unintentional and accidental. Setting aside the dearth of scientific validity, the genesis of the general theory contains the seeds of its own refutation on the grounds of intellectual dishonesty. In other words, it is a very elaborate lie disturbingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s “big lie” theory: Tell a lie big enough, and people are more likely to believe it. A good example is telling people that they descended from apes. The last time I checked, my parents, grandparents, ad nauseum are homo sapiens, not apes. My children easily recognize the incongruity, and have been instructed by me to exercise of healthy degree of skepticism regarding such outlandish, absurd claims.
Unfortunately this virulent strain of intellectual dishonesty at the core of evolution theory’s formulation continues unabated to this day as shown by the continuing use of well-documented frauds and forgeries in standard textbooks as “proof” of evolution. These frauds and forgeries range from the staged peppered moth experiments, Haeckel’s faked drawings of embryos, Darwin’s finches, the Miller-Urey experiment, and creative “Tree of Life” drawings. One would think that after 150 years the proponents of evolution would come up with more convincing proofs than faked and forged evidence. Honest academics should be asking themselves why some continue to defend a theory that relies on phony evidence to sustain its waning relevance. Unfortunately, political and legal forces shaped by the dominant social philosophies of secular humanism, functionalism and relativism are better served by embracing the general theory than in candidly acknowledging it for what is truly is: A cosmogenic myth masquerading as science. An excellent article detailing some of the fakes and forgeries commonly found in textbooks as “proof” of evolution is attached for your review. You will find the section regarding Darwin’s finches to be informative as it confirms that beak variations in Galapagos finches during droughts returned to normal after rains returned. In other words, no net evolution took place. Moreover, several finch species appear to be merging through a process of hybridization rather than diverging into distinct species as required by evolution theory. Teaching children that beak variations in finches “proves” that the general theory of evolution is true is intellectually dishonest and borders on scientific misconduct.
In the history of science no other theory has suffered from so many shortcomings while enjoying so many defenders in the scientific community indoctrinated from their youth in its tenants except for perhaps Ptolemaic theory. I suspect that when historians look back at this era and wonder why so many failed to grasp the obvious (i.e., the general theory of evolution is a colossal blunder akin to Ptolemaic theory), some will conclude that our education system played a crucial role in stifling genuine scientific inquiry and a healthy level of skepticism by indoctrinating impressionable young with an unscientific myth dressed up as a proven theory. When a society politicizes science, academic standards decline in proportion to critical thinking skills that succumb to socially and politically correct platitudes. That is why it comes as no surprise so some that while school grades show improvement, independent test scores show a general decline over the past decade despite unprecedented infusions of capital.
Fortunately there are thousands of scientists who no longer find the general theory of evolution credible or useful in explaining the available evidence. The attached list cites just some of a growing number of scientists who have parted ways with Darwinism because it fails to explain the available evidence. With recent breakthroughs in microbiology, the edifice of evolutionary theory is beginning to crumble as more and more researchers begin to ask the tough questions that so many in the entrenched scientific and political establishment prefer to ignore. One would hope that public education would lead the way in instructing our children to think independently and critically without being spoon fed mythical ideas devoid of scientific content. Having a person in authority like a teacher tell young children that their ancestors were apes is an insult not only to the children and their real parents (homo sapiens), but to science and education. The next time a student commits some atrocity at a public school, you should carefully consider when you teach them that they are animals that you increase the likelihood they will actually behave like animals. You will reap what you sow in the minds of our youth because ideas have consequences.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Padgett
*******************
My son’s teacher has yet to respond.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
FACT: Information is more densely packed in DNA than anywhere else in the universe. FICTION: Matter spontaneously produced this information. EVIDENCE: None. It is a conclusion based on the reigning paradigm. FACT: Comets decay at a rate that implies they disappear in less than a million years. FICTION: There exists an Oort cloud far from the sun that generates new comets. EVIDENCE: None. It is a conclusion based on the reigning paradigm. FACT: Fathers of modern science such as Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and James Clerk Maxwell started with a different, creationist paradigm. FICTION: ID-ers and creationists are idiots. EVIDENCE: None. It is a conclusion based on religiously holding to the reigning paradigm and being contemptuous of any other. Bravo, Ben Stein, for calling our attention to this issue and championing academic freedom.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Ben, please tell us you did this solely for the money and not because you actually care about fringe fanatics who cry that their supernatural theories are locked out of natural sciences discussion and then go on to make a civil rights issue out of it. I used to like and respect you Ben, I mean you did slip once by blaming atheists for 9/11 when everyone else in the world could see that it was religious fanatics behind it, but I remember you did publicly retract that silly statement later. I forgave you then, I’m not so sure I can forgive you now.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“A German evolutionist who was nicknamed the Angel of Black Death, came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens. A missionary in
New South Wales was horrified to witness the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children. The heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.”
I have sought clarification or substantiation of this story, and I have discovered that the claim is, in fact, an unverified ‘urban legend’. If anyone has solid evidence to support the claims that are made regarding Amalie Dietrich, I would like to see them, but thus far my research has only uncovered repetitions of the same unsubstantiated claims, and this page exposing the claims as unsubstantiated: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000828.html
It is not advisable to represent unsubstantiated urban legends as established events. Morever, even if the accounts were true — and no evidence has been shown that they accounts are true — it would not affect the validity of the theory of evolution. All that “Sad Facts” has offered is an appeal to consequence, which is itself a logical fallacy, and the alleged “consequences” are human actions, not the result of a scientific theory being accurate.
September 28th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Philips said:
”Not so hard? Then please provide me just ONE scientifically undisputed empirical evidence example of a bacteria “slowly,slowly,incrementally changing” into a new distinctly different species! I politely await your example.”
Thank you for your patience.
I’m not sure you need evidence of my claim, you have already concluded evidence for micro-evolution is abound and have accepted the theory. I have read a lot of what www.talkorigins.org has to say, and you have as well.
We have seem to have two different goals. I am defending evolution only because it is the best explanation we have, and there is a massive body of evidence to support it. I do not cling to it. Like some of us, I’m looking for truth and the evidence to support it.
It would be very noble of you to attack a theory in the attempt to improve it and ascertain the truth. I could at least dismiss your attacks if you were a close-minded imbecilic evangelical xian who starts with a conclusion of “gawdidit.” However, you seem to actually have a brain, accept micro-evolution, but pose no theory of your own to explain the evidence science has gathered for evolution. My question to you is, with all the evidence for evolution that we have, what do you propose is the real interpretation of the evidence? What is your theory to explain it all?
September 28th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Neither evolution nor ID are scientific theories. They may be historical theories, but not scientific. Neither can be scrutinized by the scientific method, which requires hypothesis, data, and repeatable experimentation.
Both ID and evolution have the same data, mainly the fossil record. They have hypotheses. However, neither can perform any experiments to back themselves up. You can’t observe evolution. You can’t go back to the beginning and hear “Let there be light”. You can’t make anything evolve. You can’t make God create something out of thin air, although you could ask Him.
The question becomes: which one has the best case from an historical, philosophical, and / or logical basis?
Keep them both out of the science classroom.
September 28th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I can read the sensitivity of others in many of the blogs above. We have students in California failing to graduate from high school because they cannot pass a math exit exam. Why do nerds find it so important then to teach our kids evolution when few careers require it? Darwin always said the fossil records would either prove him right or prove him wrong…looks to me, that a whole lot more digging needs to be done. Remember, it was God who said, “only a fool (or substitute the word idiot) says to himself, ‘there is no god’”. It really isn’t too difficult to figure out the truth when one truely searches for it.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Ben, All the name calling and insults directed toward you and anyone else who would dare confront the Neo-Darwinists remind me of a hornest’s nest that has been disturbed. It’s about time someone stirred up this hornet’s nest. I can’t wait to see Expelled!
September 28th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Evidence of a creator is all around us. There are many, many scientist, biologists, geologist, anthropologists, etc. who have come to this conclusion. Evolutionists and Creationists have the same evidence at their disposal. The differences in conclusions has to do with “Starting points”. What is your presuppositions? There are brilliant minds out there that have looked at the evidence with open minds and found that the evidence supports a creator.
I believe the God of the Bible created all things according to the way His word describes. Everything that we have discovered about this universe supports this. You just have to “open your eyes”.
For those of you that say that the creationists have found no evidence for a creator, maybe you should seek it for yourself instead of taking the word of one group of people (evolutionists). That’s all the ID folks are saying. Broaden your mind.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Ritchie, I appreciate your thoughtful (and courteous) response to my post. I will try to answer some of your points, though space requirements prevent me from covering them all.
You wrote, “Stephen -> If the ideals to which you refer (truth, justice, etc.) really had an idealized, separate, unalterable existence and you had a means of discovering them, that would be fantastic. You could wave it in the faces of all sects and creeds (and Fred Phelps’ purulent face) and have the argument over at last.”
While I cannot prove that these things exist, I can show that it is reasonable to believe them and that it is unreasonable to believe in a materialistic philosophy that ignores them. When I refer to “metaphysical materialism,” I am describing a philosophy that affirms all things that derive from matter and denies all things that derive from spirit. That means —bodies exist, souls don’t—brains exist, minds don’t—the universe exists, God doesn’t—temporal life exists, eternal life doesn’t—the appearance of design exists, design doesn’t. Theism, of course, accepts both matter and spirit, complete with all the components of each. Most people accept this theistic (double) framework because it seems to harmonize with our everyday experiences.
Metaphysical materialism (the single framework), on the other hand, is counter intuitive. If it is true, it follows that we are all nothing but animals. This holds true regardless of which component of materialism we take into account. Without a non-material mind, for example, we cannot truly be moral agents. If all we have is the physical organ we call a brain, we have no power of choice. Everything that we do is determined by electrical impulses, chemical signals, and synapses. If our brain tells us to be sad, we are sad. If it tells us to be happy, we are happy. If there is no mind to say yes or no to the brain’s impulses, then there is no capacity to make moral choices. We are, quite simply, nature’s plaything. If we are not free, there is no morality and there is no responsibility
Now the obvious solution to this problem is to follow our common sense instincts and admit that the double framework is more plausible, that we do indeed have both minds and brains. That way, we can establish a rational social order based on freedom and personal accountability. But if we do that, we have to take the rest of the non-materialist package, and that could lead to acknowledging other aspects of the double framework, like,—horror of horrors— God and nature. Obviously, some would go to any extreme to avoid such a catastrophe, especially the Darwinists. That is one reason why they embrace “methodological naturalism,” the research complement to metaphysical materialism. This approach to science dismisses all explanations for physical and biological events except natural causes, including of course, any reference to “design.”
You also wrote, “Methodological naturalism also comes into play in detection of intelligence, whether it be archaeology or SETI.”
I must take issue with your assertion that methodological naturalism can play a role in the detection of intelligence. That is the one thing it cannot do. Let’s take your example of discerning the signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Using Dembski’s example, If ID researchers, after years of receiving apparently meaningless, random signals, notice a pattern of beats and pauses that correspond to a sequence of all the prime numbers between two and one-hundred and one, we can conclude that an intelligent agent cause them. That is because the signals are both long and complex, meaning they must be “specified” to meet some objective. I cannot take time not to explain why this is so. The point is, methodological naturalism recognizes only material causes and therefore cannot detect design. Indeed, it rules out design in principle—that is why it is not adequate to explain nature in terms of information theory. We are beginning to discover that life, indeed the whole universe, is information rich. Methodological naturalism is not interested because it thinks it already knows what nature is.
I am sorry that I have already used up to much space to comment on your assessment of Dembski’s and Behe’s work, but I will make a related point. I find Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” very persuasive, and I have found many errors in his critics’ answer to it. A few years ago, Behe was debating Ken Miller, discussing his mousetrap analogy. As you know, Behe contends that the functioning some of organisms are similar to that of a mousetrap in the sense that they can only function if all component parts are functional. During the debate, Miller brought out a mousetrap with the original part missing (I think it was a spring) and put it into operation with a loud snap, dramatizing, he hoped, the point the four out of five pieces were enough to make if function. The only problem is, Miller had replaced the original spring with a spring-like substitute, which meant that five parts were still operating. He showed that he didn’t even understand the theory he was presuming to refute. I find that happens a lot with Dembski’s and Behe’s critics.
On a related topic, I discuss some of the moral implications of Darwinism on post #1567 in case you are interested.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Modern day evolutionists are like a bunch on Communists refusing a debate on democracy because they contend democracy is “not a political system” (you see, they get to define the terms). Likewise evolutionists want to define the terms of “science” to fit their NARROW understanding, thus eliminating having to defend any weaknesses of their theory. This used to be called Fascism!
September 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The fact is that science and the scientific method have in many ways already been applied to “supernatural” hypothesis. After 200 years, there is NO evidence that any type of supernatural being or supernatural domain exits. What science tells us today is that it appears that all that exists, exists within a natural universe. Nothing we have observed requires a supernatural explination. Supernaturalists - get over it. When you die you are going to go back to being part of the natural universe.
Evolution is a fact. darwins theory of evoution best explains that fact. It does not require any magical being to explain what we observe.
One final comment. Creationist keep talking about humans being an “accident”. We are not an accident. Life is an emergent property of the universe. We are getting closer every day to understanding how chemistry and biology are conected. There are 100 milion stars in our galaxy and 100 million galaxies in the universe we can see. It is improbable that we are the only life.
September 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Neither natural selection nor obligatory sexual reproduction ever had anything to do with creative evolution as both are entirely conservative, serving only to maintain the status quo as long as possible.
One of my favorite unanswered digs at the Darwimpian atheists goes in the form of the following question -
Exactly when in the course of the Creation or Creations did the Creator or Creators hand over the reins governing susbsequent Creation to that which had up to that time been created? When was that magic moment?
Lets hear the answer from Glen Davidson, Alan Fox, Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers or any other habitue of either of the two most ridiculous blogs in the history of the internet - Pharyngula and Panda’s Thumb. A special invitation to opine goes out to the membership of RichardDawkins.net. I am willing to bet that, as in the past, there will be no response from any quarter of the biggest hoax in the history of science.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“Can’t understand; God must’ve done it,” is one of the biggest straw-man arguments I’ve ever heard. I mean, it’s very charming to be called an idiot, and to be laughed at at school, and to be thought so ridiculous that no one will even let you argue for your beliefs in a classroom. But getting words shoved in my mouth is what really rubs my fur the wrong way.
All you have to say is “well, if you let ID be taught as science, then everyone will just give up when they come to something confusing and say ‘ God must have done it’”. And everyone nods solemnly in agreement.
Somehow you intellectual giants have forgotten that maybe BECAUSE GOD DID IT scientists who believe in God will be even more passionate about finding out HOW God did it? Oh gosh–that could never happen!
Certainly, let us remain in your minds as members of a less-evolved class. That way you will never have to face up to the fact that we are just as keen and interesting and intellegent as any other students alive today. It is so much easier to ignore someone when you have convinced yourself they are nuts.
By the way, good job on finding the ID in “IDiot”. Wow. What an intellegent use of your time, finding new ways to call someone you don’t like names! So creative! It’s almost like being back in kindergarden. . .
September 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Ben, thanks for being a fearless advocate for our Creator. Can’t you just smell the fear in those posts below from the Darwinist Fundies? Why, Ben, do you think they seem so frightened of ID?
Hey Darwinists, so what if some of your fellow Evolved Fish want to have their little fantasy?! Honor diversity!
Thanks again, Ben.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Umm how long was it before we found the cell? Guess it never existed until we could prove it!…What about DNA..guess it also never existed until we could prove it and give it a name.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
You cannot see the wind, but you can see the effects of wind.
You cannot see God, but you can see millions of effects of God’s existence.
A simple lily in the field would prove God’s existence to any fair observer.
I don’t have the inclination or time to list the millions of other examples that could be stated here.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
It seems most here have missed the point of Stein’s argument. It has to do with the freedom of inquiry, not anyone’s precious little dogma.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
EXPELLED visited the Baylor campus to talk about why they shut down a web site on INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Here are reports from the Waco Tribune…
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/09/21/09212007wacIDmovie.html
and the Baylor student paper…
http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=47032
The Tribune gives the following revealing exchange between the Baylor spokesman and Expelled.
________________________________
Mathis [from Expelled] then asked [Baylor spokesman] Fogleman about whether or not she is allowed to openly refer to intelligent design.
“You will not say ‘intelligent design.’ Is that forbidden? You keep saying ‘content.’ . . . You haven’t said (intelligent design) and it stuck out to me,” Mathis said. “You guys are holding your cards so tight . . . Are you not allowed to say it?”
Fogleman responded, “I am allowed to say it, (but) I’m not saying it because you’re asking me to.”
_______________________________________
Good grief.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
More Insight on ID Expelled From Baylor
Richard Schauer wrote a letter to the editor of the Baylor student paper…
http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=47019
Schauer writes…
_____________________________________
Dr. Ben Kelley and President John Lilley are to be commended for making a stand on intelligent design and removing the Web site of Dr. Marks.
The Bible is simply not supported scientifically.
This is going to be a difficult journey as we move ahead without religions, but observations don’t lie … religion is literally killing us and causing more problems than it’s worth.
As a former Christian, I can attest to the freeing from sin that accompanies religious deprogramming and the sanity that returns.
Understanding cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1956) and memes (Dawkins, 1976) are good places to start the deprogramming.
Have courage — just say no to ID.
_____________________________________
At least Schauer has the guts to write the truth instead of hiding his support of censorship of ID behind empty rhetoric.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
There are some things that one just can not be ignorant about or deny;
A car demands a designer
A jumbo jet demands a designer
A apple pie demands a designer
The whole creation demands a designer
The very fact that I can write this note demands a designer
September 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
While I’m talking about Baylor, here is some irony. Or is it hypocrisy?
In October, Baylor is celebrating banned books…
http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=47165
“The celebration was established by the American Library Association 26 years ago to promote awareness of and appreciation for the First Amendment.”
This from the same university that removed a distinguished professor’s personal web site about ID.
Good grief.
Ben. We need you.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
“A simple lily in the field would prove God’s existence to any fair observer.”
Please justify this claim.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“Modern day evolutionists are like a bunch on Communists refusing a debate on democracy because they contend democracy is “not a political system” (you see, they get to define the terms). Likewise evolutionists want to define the terms of “science” to fit their NARROW understanding, thus eliminating having to defend any weaknesses of their theory. This used to be called Fascism!”
This claim is not true when you write it on your blog, and it does not become true when you post it here.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Christopher Says:
“It seems most here have missed the point of Stein’s argument. It has to do with the freedom of inquiry, not anyone’s precious little dogma.”
Unfortunately, it seems that this movie’s utimate goal is the antithesis of freedom of inquiry. It is smoke and mirrors to advance the “precious dogma” that the Discovery Institute has clearly laid out in it’s 20 year “Wedge Plan”.
see: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
If successful, the advancement of this Dominionist agenda would mean a farewell to freedoms - not only freedom of inquiry, but freedom of religion, and freedom of liberty.
Make no mistake about it - the backers of the Discovery Institute’s Center For The Renewal Of Science & Culture (see Howard Ahmanson Jr., the Arlington Group, Chalcedon Foundation, et al) are behind this cute little cinematic project, and would like nothing better than to drive real science and inquiry out of our school systems, and replace it with their narrow, perverted vision of christianity.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
” I can prove mathematically that evolution didn’t occur.”
Please provide this proof.
“Further, I assert that those of you who are so staunch in your beliefs about Darwin, have never even read Darwin’s diaries, for if you had, you would know that he, himself, stated that this hypothesis was unprovable.”
All scientific claims are unproveable. Your statement is meaningless.
“Further, Mr. High School Fresman, you, son, have been brainwashed. The first rule of science is ACCEPT NOTHING. The second rule is QUESTION EVERYTHING. It’s called skepticism.”
This is an oversimplification of the scientific method.
“For those of you who are saying that this is religion disguised as science, then you have all failed basic freshman sciene. Evolution is NOT a theory.”
You are incorrect. The theory of evolution is, in fact, a theory. Moreover, the validity of evolution as a theory does not affect the demonstratable religious motives of ID proponents.
“It does not pass the most basic of tests, which is, controlled experimentation.”
Your claim is false.
“That absolutely has not occurred. There are no controlled experiments concerning evolution. Why? Takes too much time.”
You are simply incorrect. Perhaps you have not actually researched the work that has been done within the field of evolution?
“So, no evidence, no theory.”
You are incorrect; there exists extensive evidence for the theory of evolution. ERV insertions are a compelling recent discovery.
“There is more evidence toward the existence of God than there is for the evidence of evolution.”
Please provide this “evidence” toward the existence of “God”. Also explain to which deity, out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, you refer and why you reference that specific deity to the exclusion of all others.
“(why are there still monkeys or pigs?)”
This question is meaningless. Why should there not still be monkeys or pigs?
September 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“I provide a copy of the actual letter which Talkorgin denies the content exist. ”
Talkorigins does not deny the content of the letter. They instead point out that Patterson was stating that it is impossible to determine whether any given ‘transitional’ fossil find is indeed a direct ancestor to known extant species or if it was a branch from a common ancestor of a known extant species that ultimately died out. Suggesting that Patterson was denying the existence of transitional fossils is not an honest interpretation of his letter.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
“What experiments have evolutionary scientists conducted that prove abiogenesis? ”
Nothing in science is proven, though your question is hardly relevant given that the theory of evolution does not address the subject of abiogenesis.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
# Dimensio Says:
1650 questions….
_____________________
“A simple lily in the field would prove God’s existence to any fair observer.” Please justify this claim.
______________________
How about…
“A simple Lilley in the administration building will try to disprove God’s existence to any at Baylor.”
September 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
“We have students in California failing to graduate from high school because they cannot pass a math exit exam. Why do nerds find it so important then to teach our kids evolution when few careers require it?”
Are you suggesting that we exclude a fundamental theory of biology because students currently are unable to meet mathematics standards?
“Darwin always said the fossil records would either prove him right or prove him wrong…looks to me, that a whole lot more digging needs to be done.”
Actually, the fossil record has since vindicated Darwin’s predictions regarding evolution, if not his belief in strict gradualism. It has, however, supported his contemporaries who themselves were not convinced that evolution need be gradualistic. Moreover, genetic research has further provided evidence for the theory of evolution.
“Remember, it was God who said, “only a fool (or substitute the word idiot) says to himself, ‘there is no god’”.”
I fail to see the relevance of your statement here.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
“Evolution theory is a bizarre paradox that was intentionally and intelligently created yet proposes all life is unintentional and accidental.”
This is false. That evolution does not presuppose or conclude intent or purpose behind the existence of any life does not mean that there is not some intent or purpose that cannot be discerned through the theory of evolution.
“Setting aside the dearth of scientific validity, the genesis of the general theory contains the seeds of its own refutation on the grounds of intellectual dishonesty.”
Please justify this claim.
“In other words, it is a very elaborate lie disturbingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s “big lie” theory: Tell a lie big enough, and people are more likely to believe it.”
Please demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a “lie”.
“A good example is telling people that they descended from apes.”
How, exactly, is this a lie?
“The last time I checked, my parents, grandparents, ad nauseum are homo sapiens, not apes.”
This is not a logical argument. The first flaw in your reasoning is that you are under the mistaken impression that homo sapiens are not apes. In fact, homo sapiens are apes.
The second flaw in your argument is that you assume that you can disprove the claim by regressing back only two generations. This is not rational. I am descended from Europeans yet my parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents were born in the United States. By your reasoning, I cannot be descended from Europeans, even though one of my great-great grandparents was from Ireland, and another immigrated from Italy.
“My children easily recognize the incongruity, and have been instructed by me to exercise of healthy degree of skepticism regarding such outlandish, absurd claims.”
If this is the case, then your children would do well to take a course in formal logic.
I had considered addressing your arguments against Social Darwinism, however attempting to associate “Social Darwinism” and atrocities committed under its influence as a logical consequence of the theory of evolution is so intellectually bankrupt that I do not feel it worthy of a detailed digression. However, if you wish for me to explain why your arguments in that area were invalid, I will accomidate if you ask.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“Somehow you intellectual giants have forgotten that maybe BECAUSE GOD DID IT scientists who believe in God will be even more passionate about finding out HOW God did it?”
Are you referring to scientists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins? Both believe that, ultimately, a God is responsible for all that exists. Both also reject the notion that Intelligent Design is scientific.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Boy, I look forward to this movie. All of the misfits seem to be upset Ben so that is good. You already have their dander up! I’ve heard many a scientist say that ID or creation is not scientific because they do not have articles in refereed journals. Then the same “scientists” go on to say that they don’t have them in refereed journals because we don’t let them in. Other slogans I’ve heard these “scientists” use in seminars include: “Don’t Debate (creationists), Legislate”, “Don’t debate a creationist, they are more prepared than we are”, “Evolution is not a hypothesis but a Law. It is a law because we say it is a law”. (All of the above were said by the famous Harlan Banks, Botanist from Cornell.
Wow, what a smart and tolerant man he was.
Go Ben Go.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
StephenB said:
“Metaphysical materialism (the single framework), on the other hand, is counter intuitive.Metaphysical materialism (the single framework), on the other hand, is counter intuitive.”
Something being intuitive or counter intuitive has nothing to do with its validity. Some of the greatest scientific theories we consider correct are counter intuitive. Many of them are the same theories that were squelched by the religious leader of the past. Our many mistake in our scientific history due to applying this method of reason has taught us that conclusion should be drawn from the evidence not from an impression.
“The only problem is, Miller had replaced the original spring with a spring-like substitute, which meant that five parts were still operating.”
Though Miller and others have clearly shown variations on the mouse trap with the removal of many parts up to only having one part and still being a functional trap or other tool, the trap analogy doesn’t work since a mouse trap cannnot self replicate.
“I find Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” very persuasive, and I have found many errors in his critics’ answer to it.”
Behe’s IC has been throughly refuted by many scientists. Recently a young grad student showed that Behe was incorrect in his book ‘Edge of Evolution’ when he mentioned how HIV has not developed any new molecular machines and thus ‘we can decisively conclude that random mutation did not build the machinery of life.’ The student pointed out that HIV has developed New Gene, New Molecular Machinery, and New Protein-Protein Interactions. This more than shows that organisms can produce new complex machines thought RM & NS.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/illustrated-guide-to-vpu.html
Mr. Behe didn’t seems to have no response and instead sent in a substitute hitter from the Discovery Institute who was unfamiliar with the subject.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/send-in-pawns.html
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
September 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“A car demands a designer
A jumbo jet demands a designer
A apple pie demands a designer
The whole creation demands a designer”
There are known processes by which intelligent intervention brings about the existence of cars, jumbo jets and apple pies. Please detail the process by which intelligent intervention brings about “the whole creation”.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I am so dissappointed the Ben stein has lent his name to this silly project. Fact: anyone CAN question Darwinism, but they had better have a better theory… not just “God did it”. Or worse “Ben Stein Did it”
Truly dissappointed …I Won’t watch, I will discourage others from wasting their time.
Ben… you blew it
September 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
TheOnlyDoor Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 11:34 am
“As I listen here to the Angry A-thiest(religion absent a diety)objections to Intelligent design, Im stunned by the inabillity( or refusal) to turn those same questions back on the Darwinian HYPOTHESIS.”
Oh, yeah, they just point you to their science fiction section entitled “talkorigins”
Dimensio said: (about Angel of Black Death)
“I have sought clarification or substantiation of this story, and I have discovered that the claim is, in fact, an unverified ‘urban legend’. If anyone has solid evidence to support the claims that are made regarding Amalie Dietrich, I would like to see them, but thus far my research has only uncovered repetitions of the same unsubstantiated claims, and this page exposing the claims as unsubstantiated: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000828.html”
Well that doesn’t surprise me. People would be amazed what real truths are hidden from the public. Darwinism evos will go to any length to cover up the real facts. It seems Darwinism is an urban legend. (folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.)
Australia’s Aboriginal people
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/bodysnatchers.asp
http://msn-list.te.verweg.com/2007-April/007166.html
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,1443039,00.html
StephenB comments:
“Miller brought out a mousetrap with the original part missing (I think it was a spring) and put it into operation with a loud snap, dramatizing, he hoped, the point the four out of five pieces were enough to make if function. The only problem is, Miller had replaced the original spring with a spring-like substitute, which meant that five parts were still operating. He showed that he didn’t even understand the theory he was presuming to refute.”
All I can picture here, is a bunch of Darwinian’s jumping up and down over the supposedly defeat of Behe, thinking the four parts worked, not realizing that the fifth part was actually there, but over looked it, like they do anything else outside of Darwinism.
And doesn’t a certain “D” person have nothing better to say than the same old, same old? Kind of like a broken record.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
If it doesn’t take a God to create life, why haven’t we done it..How do you give atoms a will of thier own?..If life forms on it’s own, shouldn’t it still be happening? Has anyone seen it happen, and I don’t mean adaptation? What life forms have we created without manipulating other life forms to do so. And if we have created a new life for wouldn’t that only prove that it requires an intelligent will to create it?
September 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
# Dimensio Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Talkorigins does not deny the content of the letter. They instead point out…
**********************************************************
Talkorgin does not provide a copy of the letter for examination because it conflicts with their interpretation.
The letter is full of condemning statements such as the following regarding transitional fossils:
“It is “hard to contradict Gould and the American Museum…when THEY say that there are NO transitional fossils.”
“I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
The entire letter discloses his frustration of no transitional fossils.
Talkorgins would hope that you rely on their interpretation of the letter rather than read the incriminating statments within the letter YOURSELF. If you read the letter with objectivity and disseminate Pattersons writings, it will become rather obvious to you as it does for those who challenge evolution…There are no transitional Fossils and talkorgins is covering up the facts. The letter was just the first of many of his writings questioning the fossil record…
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/sampler171.htm
Please read it yourself and rely on your own perceptions, not Talkorgins…
See Letter:
http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/evonotexist.htm
September 28th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
# Atomic Chimp Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-behe-please-allow-me-to.html
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/08/illustrated-guide-to-vpu.html
*********************************************************
I read the article and this KID seems to be an arrogant immature little twit, but worse is that he is grossly misrepresenting Behe and has not read any ID papers on retro viruses. This Kids class assignment on HIV does not include evidence that the HIV virus had the mechanisms necessary for Macroevolution, unless he has some human patients with HIV who are more scared that they are going to transform into a new species rather than being worried that they are going to die…unless you also believe that HIV is beneficial for the survival of our species.
September 29th, 2007 at 4:14 am
People are going to love this movie. All those red states folks who stood in line to vote for George Bush in ‘04 may never stand in line for another mainline Republican, but they will stand in line for this movie. Guarantee it.
Oh, by the way, that’s going to be a consensus. Did you hear me, “consensus”? ha ha ha. Sort of like “academic consensus.” Or “all educated people”, or “all modern or fully modern people”, or whatever other sniffing that amounts to herd instinct for the entrenched academics.
And, also take note that all those red state folks are starting to think twice about paying 40K for academics to sniff at the values of the folks who write the checks. This movie is going to hurt some schools that need to be hurt.
As I read the above, I feel motivated to say the worst kinds of things. The G word, the J word. Religious words. Words that insert thoughts into minds. I know how unfair it is for me to speak so, since no one should have the right to insert unwelcome thoughts into the minds of another. But this power is so attractive. Its as if you will all melt like a green wicked witch with a single public utterance. Let me let you think I will hate you. I feel such power as you imagine that I will torture you into public prayer and submission before a deity! No, let me begin slowly, more wickedly, and merely imply the idea of deity …….
In tell i gent …….. DEEEESIGN!
September 29th, 2007 at 6:23 am
As for the absence of any response to my post # 1639 -
WHATDIDITELLYOU.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
September 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Dear B.S., the movie isn’t even out and the inquisition is already putting you to the torch! LOL. They are out in DROVES. LOL. This movie should be spectacular! GO BEN, GO!!!
September 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
From Dimensio’s Post:
“A simple lily in the field would prove God’s existence to any fair observer.”
Please justify this claim.
—————————————————
I justify it by saying that almost all of the human race (with the exception of the Dimensio’s of the world) believe there is wind. Alghough wind is invisible, we can feel and see the effects of wind.
And so it is with God.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A SCIENCE? The following are just a few examples that I will layout and you, the reader, can determine whether they come under the category of science . . .
- The written text on the page of a book is laid out so as to commumicate information to the reader. The letters do not have to be laid out that way, but they ARE laid out that way. Thus, many reasonable humans might conclude that an itellgent source (an author) laid them out that way. And so it is with DNA. DNA is laid out in an organized manner so as to give information. DNA does not have to be laid out that way, but IT IS laid out that way. To conclude that DNA was designed and laid out that way by an intelligent being is not an irresponsible statement.
- Every human cell is a machine that is composed of many parts, several which are moving parts. If you take away just one of those part, the machine can no longer work. It’s not that it doesn’t work as well, but rather it does not work at all. To give the most basic example, a mousetrap would not work if you took away just one of its 4 or 5 parts. It would totally useless and would not work. Where did all of these parts come from that make up the very complex human cell? How did they all manage to get together on their own, never mind where they came from? To say that an intelligent designer was involved in designing the human cell is not an irresponsible statement to make.
The Cambrian Explosion contradicts Darwin’s tree of life, and stamps out the idea that all life forms came from a common ancestor. Therefor, to say that an intelligent designer was involved is not an irresponsible statement to make.
It is Saturday and I have a full day of chores ahead of me. Countless other examples could be given to support the idea that INTELLIGENT DESIGN is indeed a science. I.D. is much more scientific that evolution ever dreamed of being.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Dimensio wrote, “I had considered addressing your arguments against Social Darwinism, however attempting to associate “Social Darwinism” and atrocities committed under its influence as a logical consequence of the theory of evolution is so intellectually bankrupt that I do not feel it worthy of a detailed digression. However, if you wish for me to explain why your arguments in that area were invalid, I will accomidate if you ask.”
Oh, go ahead, humor me. If you don’t want to respond to Robert Padgett’s post @1627, take a crack at mine #1567.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
# Dimensio Says:
September 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
There are known processes by which intelligent intervention brings about the existence of cars, jumbo jets and apple pies. Please detail the process by which intelligent intervention brings about “the whole creation”.
*********************************************************
Dimencio,
Please detail the processes prior to the Bing Bang of our universe……………………Ill be politely awaiting for your answers.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Atomic Chimp wrote, “Something being intuitive or counter intuitive has nothing to do with its validity. Some of the greatest scientific theories we consider correct are counter intuitive. Many of them are the same theories that were squelched by the religious leader of the past. Our many mistake in our scientific history due to applying this method of reason has taught us that conclusion should be drawn from the evidence not from an impression.”
Obviously, you missed the point. It was a counter-intuitive world view that gave rise to your ridiculous science. When the counter-intuitive world view proves ridiculous, you should begin to consider the common-sense view. I showed how ridiculous it is to believe that brains exist and minds don’t. Please read for context.
You wrote, “Though Miller and others have clearly shown variations on the mouse trap with the removal of many parts up to only having one part and still being a functional trap or other tool, the trap analogy doesn’t work since a mouse trap cannnot self replicate.”
I am not going to ridicule you for saying that a mousetrap can work with only one part, though I could very easily. I will, however, ask you for some evidence.
Sorry, Atomic Chimp, those so-called refutations don’t work. I’ve heard it all before. One time they will assume evolution to be true and then make the evidence conform to their assumptions. Another time they will make the case for micro-evolution and pretend they have proven macro-evolution.
Yet again, they will challenge various scientists to dialogue with them, but always in a forum where they get the last word and reserve the right to distort what has been said. Things they wouldn’t dare do in a debate, which is why they participate in so few of them.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
One last point for Atomic Chimp. Here’s the deal in a nutshell.
The world view of materialism provides the metaphysical underpinning for the so-called scientific theory of Darwinism. Materialism holds that there are no minds, only brains. We now know there are minds. Therefore, materialism is unsound. If the foundation of Darwinism is unsound, them it follows Darwinism is unsound.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
One question:
What empirically falsifiable predictions does ID make? In other words, what sort of experiment could I perform in the lab to falsify the claim that a magical being was/is somehow involved in evolution?
If no experiment can falsify it, then it is a religious or philosophical belief, NOT a scientific theory.
You should do a film bemoaning the mistreatment of a few crackpot historians who deny the Holocaust. EVERYONE should get tenure, no matter how inane their ideas are! It’s only fair! Right?
September 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“Please detail the processes prior to the Bing Bang of our universe……………………Ill be politely awaiting for your answers.”
I have never claimed to know of any such processes. I fail to see the relevance of your question, and I notice that you did not answer my question.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
“Talkorgin does not provide a copy of the letter for examination because it conflicts with their interpretation.”
Talkorigins does, however, provide a copy of a subsequent letter from Patterson who confirms that creationists are quoting him out of context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif
It would appear that you are claiming that you know better than Patterson what Patterson intended.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
tr Says:
Galileo for one was almost put in front of the inquisition – he backed down and signed a paper saying that his telescope was a mistake. This based on the almighty church - in the name of a sky god, that never existed except in the minds of uneducated fools.
Is this a joke? Is it supposed to be funny? I am lost as these claims arefar from fact. Please explain. Galileo’s problem was not the Church but his scientific peers. The Churches problem is they have been too anxious to jump into bed with secular science fads.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
“Well that doesn’t surprise me. People would be amazed what real truths are hidden from the public. Darwinism evos will go to any length to cover up the real facts. It seems Darwinism is an urban legend. (folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.)”
Do you have any actual evidence that Amalie Dietrich solicited murder for hire and that her actions have been covered up? Also, please explain how the allegations against Amalie Dietrich being true would invalidate the theory of evolution. Also explain your continued usage of the term “Darwinism” even though you have already been informed that usage of the term is incorrect.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
All I can say to those who do not believe in God is wait…….you can’t live forever — you need only to pass a funeral home for PROOF of that; then you will see and will have to stand face-to-face with the one who created YOU.
Ben…continue the great work. Be strong and courageous. There are many praying for you as you proceed.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“Oh, go ahead, humor me. If you don’t want to respond to Robert Padgett’s post @1627, take a crack at mine #1567.”
Certainly.
The theory of evolution states — in its simplest form — that all extant biodiversity emerged from common ancestry through copying errors creating heriditable traits that enabled certain subsets of populations to more successfully produce viable offspring in light of specific, varied environmental selection pressures. Please explain how that being true logically justifies genocide. If you cannot, then you cannot reasonably claim that the theory of evolution logically leads to genocide.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“I justify it by saying that almost all of the human race (with the exception of the Dimensio’s of the world) believe there is wind. Alghough wind is invisible, we can feel and see the effects of wind.
And so it is with God.”
Wind creates an objectively measurable effect. Please define the measureable effect created by God and explain how this effect can be measured.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“Other slogans I’ve heard these “scientists” use in seminars include: “Don’t Debate (creationists), Legislate”, “Don’t debate a creationist, they are more prepared than we are”, “Evolution is not a hypothesis but a Law. It is a law because we say it is a law”. (All of the above were said by the famous Harlan Banks, Botanist from Cornell.”
Please provide a citation for these alleged quotes from Harlan Banks.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Dimensio wrote,
I am familiar with many of the leaders who have committed atrocities that creationists have attributed to “application” of the theory of evolution. In all cases, not one creationist has been able to demonstrate that the atrocities of these leaders is an actual logical application of the theory of evolution. They cannot demonstrate such a connection, because it is impossible to use any scientific theory — evolution included — as a justification for any chosen action.”
You assertions are incorrect. If we read “The Descent Of Man, there is no doubt whatsoever the Darwin meant to revise ethics based on his “survival of the fittest” principle—that the unfit individuals and races were unneeded products of evolution and should be left behind for the sake of the species. How much “evidence” do you need? You can look up all the eugenic and racist quotes for yourself.
Here is one to start with:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” (1874, p. 178).
In this context, the evolutionary process becomes the arbiter of all morality. Whatever promotes the evolutionary progress of humanity is good, whatever impedes it is bad. Since people are going to die in the struggle for existence anyway, why not help it along. That was the philosophy of those unnamed agents I alluded to earlier. So let’s name a few:
From Nietzsche:
“The biblical prohibition “Thou shalt not kill” is a piece of naïveté compared with the seriousness of Life’s own “Thou shalt not” issued to decadence: “Thou shalt not procreate!” —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no “equal right,” between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality!”
From Hitler: (who explicitly paid tribute to Darwin in hiw writings)
“A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called “humaneness” of individuals, in order to make place for the true “humaneness of nature,” which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.” Hello Nazism
From Karl Marx, who also paid tribute to Darwin, we learn that the evolutionary theory of “competitive struggle for existence” should be applied to the class struggle. Hello Communism.
From Margaret Sanger, who followed the same principle, we learn that the black race is inferior and ought to be eliminated. This was the philosophy that founded Planned Parenthood. Hello Eugenics.
Darwinism undermines the idea that man is made in the “image of God” and that man in a uniquely rational being. As Richard Dawkins put it, human beings are “lumbering robots” and “survival machines” for genes.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, so I am not clear what you mean when you say, “In all cases, not one “creationist” has been able to demonstrate that the atrocities of these leaders is an actual logical application of the theory of evolution.”
September 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am
“All I can say to those who do not believe in God is wait…….you can’t live forever — you need only to pass a funeral home for PROOF of that; then you will see and will have to stand face-to-face with the one who created YOU.”
Please explain the relevance of this statement. This forum is about discussion of the theory of evolution and the conjecture termed Intelligent Design.
September 30th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“The world view of materialism provides the metaphysical underpinning for the so-called scientific theory of Darwinism. Materialism holds that there are no minds, only brains. We now know there are minds. Therefore, materialism is unsound. If the foundation of Darwinism is unsound, them it follows Darwinism is unsound.”
Your fundamental error is in assuming that “materialism” is the “undepinning” of the theory of evolution. It is not, thus your conclusion is faulty, even if it were not itself based upon inherently flawed logic.
You are also using the incorrect term “Darwinism” in reference to evolution. This suggests that you have not actually researched the theory.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Thank you, Ben! My family and I look forward to the movie. I can tell from the comments that many of these kids have already been taken over by the dark side. Hang tough! Truth will win out. Those who die as atheists don’t stay that way very long.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:35 am
# Dimensio Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“I have never claimed to know of any such processes.I fail to see the relevance of your question”.
Demensio, You accept the big bang theory without science knowing the process, but you make it a requirement of ID to detail the process before accepting the theory…
Thats a double standard!
Dimensio said…
“There are known processes by which intelligent intervention brings about the existence of cars, jumbo jets and apple pies. Please detail the process by which intelligent intervention brings about “the whole creation”.
September 30th, 2007 at 1:51 am
# Dimensio Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Talkorigins does, however, provide a copy of a subsequent letter from Patterson who confirms that creationists are quoting him out of context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson/patterson.gif
Dimensio, Do you understand the concept of damage control…The origional letter states:
# “Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils”
Patterson omits the most profound statement in the letter from further interpretation and implicates Gould and the other American museums scientific observation NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS in the fossil record.
Within 2 years later…we the gullable public, are presented with Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory that doesent require transitional fossils for empirical evidence to validate the theory. HMMMM…How interesting !
September 30th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Stephen -> Thanks for the reply
That’s an unfair characterization of the route from free will. Determinism is also a component of theistic philosophy; not necessarily in the guise of ‘everything is predetermined’, but more often in the struggle between asserting free will is possible yet God knows everything that will happen. There are answers to that, but none of them are particularly ‘pat’ answers.
Apart from that, you also have the otherwise contradiction that despite the ‘argument from despair’ depictions in some theistic literature (many of which read like fantasy), metaphysical materialists do not in the large behave in a nihilistic or fatalistic manner. Secular humanism in particular bases its moral underpinnings on human empathy, and that moral choices have consequences.
As to whether or not metaphysical materialism is true, that’s another question, but without experiencing the people behind it outside one of these confrontational forums, imagination about what it ought to be like is misguided.
Regardless, I’m going to attempt to break the implied tie between metaphysical and methodological naturalism here shortly.
Methodological naturalism as a general guiding principle of science is still a decent way of “knowing”, compared to many of the alternatives, like revelation (whose revelation can you trust? how are the other ones wrong?) but intuition and common sense are rampant amongst materialists and theists alike, even though some true things can be unintuitive and some intuitive things can be untrue. Most people need to take shortcuts, because there is so much background material involved. Materialists will in general discount revelation, but the other modes of knowledge are available to theists and materialists alike, hardly making methodological naturalism a “research complement” of metaphysical materialism.
There’s one other thing to remember about methodological naturalism: what ‘nature’ consists of also has to be determined. Neutrons, magnetic flux and current were once not yet part of nature. If ghosts were real manifestations, they would be counted (we could have inhabited a Ghostbusters universe, as it were, complete with ghost detection equipment). If deities, djinn, satyrs, etc. made regular appearances, they would also be counted. Even were we not aware of such things directly, supernatural activity would introduce detectable error into results. It’s fair to check into known natural causes first but if, say, saying a small prayer or rubbing a coin reproducibly altered gravity on a temporary basis, that would become part of nature. You’re just not allowed to claim “error due to supernatural influence” (though undergraduates would love to be able to explain away their lab error that way *grin*) without further work.
“Design” isn’t discounted a priori, but you can test certain assertions of certain kinds of design. Design-from-scratch can be discounted based on our research because of the locations and appearance of shared deactivated virus sequences between species (cf. endogenous viruses), unless one makes the “Loki appeal” to a trickster deity.
That is an extreme claim, from my point of view, but I will explain further.
Well, apart from the fact that SETI research is not the same as Intelligent Design research, how on earth is methodological naturalism not involved here? Aliens are also tentatively presumed to be a natural part of the universe; nobody is doing a seance with the aliens here.
Beware of creating a divide based on “natural” versus “artificial”; that’s not a distinction “naturalism” makes. Naturalism includes the artificial… elsewise you could never do science on fluorescent lights.
The SETI program looks for spikes, triplets (in case there’s a “beat” being sent) and gaussians (which would show a constant signal coming from somewhere, which shows up as a gaussian curve because the collector rotates with the earth) to attempt to find more likely hits. A prime number sequence would be pure gold in this research, but that also wouldn’t be presumed to be supernatural.
Pulsars we now know to be a natural phenomenon, but the constantly pulsing signal must have been extraordinarily exciting at the time. Little green men… or? Could anything in space really be rotating that fast? The thoughts of the man who discovered the first pulsar optically are recorded here.
Mind you, there are still people of the opinion that pulsars are really part of a network of beacons used by extraterrestrials.
It’s because of what we know in astronomy to be natural that we believe we can distinguish the artificial.
I don’t find it very persuasive, and it’s not really for want of a good metaphor. It really comes down to the proteins that are used in his examples. For his irreducible complexity claim to be valid to the first degree, the proteins that make up the flagellum would be required to have no other function, in order to invalidate precursors. They do, however, and that was the main thrust of Ken Miller’s claims once he gets into the presentation.
The most impressive attempt at stepwise protein evolution analysis was done this year by Thornton et al. at the University of Oregon who managed to determine the steps from an old human protein (analyzed by crystallography) to a modern one.
Behe commented on this work:
However, it does violate Behe’s view of the unlikelihood of functional changes.
I don’t think Behe’s addressed the new Vpx gene in some forms of HIV, either. Luskin’s response to it was pretty poor.
*grin* I see that
In the interest of brevity, I’ll just make two comments on it: some
folks make “is” into “ought”, which leads to mistakes, and some folks
put their own pernicious spin on “fitness”, which does the same. That
people take advantage is as predictable as the twisting of the “Curse
of Ham” to justify slavery. Okay, that was three comments 
A whole fun topic unto itself!
By the way, where do you stand on common descent? With Behe, who accepts it, or with Dembski, who denies it?
Cheers
September 30th, 2007 at 6:36 am
Frederich Nietzche once opined -
“God is dead.”
Speaking only as a scientist, I am inclined to agree. The mistake that clowns like Richard Dawkins, P.Z. (godless liberal and randomly ejaculating) Myers, and Christopher Hitchens have all made is that there NEVER WERE one or more Gods. A prior existence of one or more Gods is ALL that is required of my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis or of any other scientific hypothesis for that matter.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that one cannot die without having once lived. That is why it is incorrect to regard Nietzche as an atheist.
“Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, originally in italics.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison